Thanks for posting that, Brooklyn.

Nice try, Sun.

The Signorile sources are not anonymous except that they aren't identified to readers. They are confidential, meaning that they have been verified by the author and can be verified by editors who run news of the story. Reliance on confidential sources is how Watergate (like Clintongate) was reported from the start. Ditto for countless other stories. This simple distinction between professional ethics regulating the use of anonymous versus confidential sources continues to elude or be "mysteriously" ignored by critics in this case. To try to argue that the story isn't credible because the sources aren't identified is to also discredit a huge percentage of what is reported every day.

Critics are trying in their desperation, as has been repeatedly pointed out to them, to apply evidentiary standards to a news story, as if the subject of the story were being formally accused of a crime. This is not a crime story (and even if it were, confidential sources would still be acceptable). Ironically, for the most part, these same people -- including Andrew Sullivan -- did NOT remain quiet, suspending judgement until Monica's cum-stained dress was produced. Neither did most Americans remain neutral until the missing tapes convicted Nixon.

Don't try to make a news story a court case. It ain't. Sullivan does have recourse in the courts if he wants to pursue it, however. He will have to prove malice, that the allegations aren't true and that they are not appropriately contextual.

If you choose not to believe the story because the sources aren't identified, I hope you make that a consistent practice. Otherwise, it would appear you are guilty of the same kind of political agendas of which you accuse Sullivan's critics.

Jake, are you archiving these discussions? The deletion here is certainly part of the ongoing treatment of the Sullivan story.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]