Well according to this article, Woodward will now niether confirm or deny that Felt was Deep Throat. However, back when the Vanity Fair article was being written, John D. O’Connor, the author, talked with Woodward about being included in the article.

“Felt, 91, purportedly said he wanted Woodward, who, with Carl Bernstein, relied on Deep Throat in his reporting, to cooperate.

But Woodward was concerned about Felt’s mental state, in talks and a visit with him, and, ultimately, he did not go along with a joint exposure plan.”

So if Woodward really met with Felt, and later said he didn’t feel comfortable with it, this is basically saying Felt *is* Deep Throat without saying it.

I’m as giddy as a school girl! We may finally know the identity of the greatest anonymous source in journalistic history!

Could this really be it? Could we finally know who “Deep Throat” was? According to this article, Deep Throat was W. Mark Felt, 91, who was second-in-command at the FBI in the early 1970s. Now, he is stepping forward on his own, but so far neither Ben Bradlee or Carl Bernstein will confirm or deny. (Info on that here)

The odd thing is, I can not find any information about Bob Woodward saying anything yet. As the man who met with Deep Throat all those times, he is really the one who needs to comment, and so far nothing. So I will be watching closely for any information about his comments.

You can read the whole Vanity Fair article here, but I will warn you it is an Adobe PDF, so be prepared for Acrobat to launch.

So much to write about this week! YAY! Let’s start with one of my favorite subjects though, bad journalism.

You all know I must be talking about the Newsweek article that reportedly led to 15 deaths in riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now, Newsweek is retracting the story, and commenting on the why of what happened. The most important part is:

Two weeks ago, in our issue dated May 9, Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported in a brief item in our Periscope section that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur’an down a toilet. Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur’an charge.

I really am not going to comment on the subject of the original story, that is for everyone to figure out their feelings on their own. What I am commenting on though is the journalistic ethics on display here.

First mistake – They had one source on this story. They took a no comment, and a comment on another section of the article, but not the Qur’an portion as a confirmation. That is a weak, weak basis to a story. On a story of this magnitude you do not run it without at least two confirmations. This is a story with the ability to set major actions in motion, and it did, but they ran it with one anonymous source. Yes, good chance they knew the source, good for them, it will still a major accusation with only one confirmed source, that is just a bad choice for any writer.

Second mistake – Read this portion

“Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur’an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them “not credible.” Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Qur’an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.”

Well, your source now wavers, never a good thing, but the biggest insult? One sentence. One lousy sentence for 15 lives killed over something that could never be 100% confirmed without a doubt. “But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.” Just look at that sentence. It is empty…meaningless. It should read something more to the effect of:

We at Newsweek deeply regret the violence that our lazy, lackluster reporting skills caused. We will no longer run a story based on one source and assume lack of comment does not constitute a confirmation. And the writer of the article, Michael Isikoff, will be made to pay for his screw up.

Oh yeah, did I mention no discipline is planned for the writer, Michael Isikoff ? Well none is planned. Nope, apparently you are no longer punished when you fail your job miserably and cost 15 people their lives. Good to know.

It is time for the media to stop being concerned with who gets a story out first/ I would much rather have accurate reporting that results in no deaths thank you!

Could someone PLEASE tell me why anyone would care about this runaway bride story? Is there so little news going on that the news outlets are this desperate for a story?

Yes, I understand the “24 hour news cycle”, the concept that with all these 24 hour news channels, there is a lot of air time to fill up. So stories, that in the past, would have gotten no play, now get boosted to prime time fodder.

I believe it goes beyond that though, this also stinks of journalistic laziness. This paticular story is an easy one, no work needs to be done, so sure, let’s put it on. What ever happened to hard hitting journalists who hit the streets and dug for their stories? Are they on the endangered species list and I didn’t know it?

**UPDATE**
Hard hitting journalism at its finest! Thank goodness someone brought this up….the gifts people bought that they now have to return! Phew…I’ll sleep easier tonight with this knowledge secured.