I'm beginning to wonder if the media's reliance on the "anonymous source" is just a big cover-up for them making up the news. I don't know about you, but it's been my opinion that your journalistic duty to protect your source goes out the window when your source stabs you in the back. If some guy hung me out to dry with lies and misinformation like they apparently did to Newsweek, I'd sure as hell be pointing the finger directly at them.

I've heard a lot of talk about the journalists duty to maintain the anonymity of their source. They're saying that sources won't come forward if there is a threat they'll be revealed. I think the threat of exposure makes the sources more reliable. I mean, if there is no recourse for these so-called "anonymous sources", what's to keep me from making shit up and telling it to reporters. Especially if the media is going to take all the heat and not even reveal who I am.

Of course the question at hand is why is Newsweek still refusing to reveal their source, one that has severely damaged their journalistic integrity? I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have to wonder if they really even have one.