Most newspapers exist solely to sell ads now. From my state’s crappy AZ Republic to others owned by billionaires, it’s hard to find unbiased sources. Everything is about the bottom line. It’s a sad world when some of my most trusted newsmen include Colbert and Stewart, because at least with them, I know where they are coming from.

Fair enough. Thanks again for your insight.

Check out the NYT story.

I’m by no means saying that the anonymous claims about Palin are true. However, I have no doubt that Cameron was speaking the truth that they came from inside the campaign. Still, that said, the use of anonymous sources is totally out of control. We’ve just spent 8 years of the media reporting everything the Bush Administration wants people to hear, attributed to “Anonymous high-ranking whatevers in the administration.” So I’m totally with you on that.

However, the meme that a known hoaxer taking credit for being the anonymous source translating to “Cameron was hoaxed, the whole thing is now worthless” just doesn’t add up. I was really surprised that so many made that jump. Maybe it’s my fault for being surprised.

Plus, I’ve seen that one of the actors involved has denied ever speaking with Cameron, for what that’s worth.

First of all, thanks for stopping by and offering your insights. I appreciate it.

Second of all, there is still no corroborative accounts here. There are still anonymous sources, unless you’d like to contact me with names and contact information of people I can verify these claims against. It’s shoddy journalism and irresponsible to simply put out claims based on anonymous “Senior McCain Aides”. I don’t really know who you are or your role/intimacy with the matter, but if there is a way to corroborate/verify this story, then let’s get that information on the table. Until then, Palin should be given then benefit of the doubt or the story very, extremely clearly labeled by reporters as speculative and unconfirmed.

So now what’s interesting is this: In creating and then being outed as a hoax by the NY Times, a false history has emerged. Make no mistake, Cameron got his information from people who were actually inside the McCain campaign (unlike Eisenstadt). It was a save-face, dump-the-blame-on-Palin move. While I am no fan whatsoever of Palin, she became the scapegoat for the entire campaign. And it wasn’t her fault that the campaign was run terribly.

As for your thoughts on bloggers as journalists, I agree. It was never that hard to find out that he was a hoax. Since June, a simple Google search of “Martin Eisenstadt” would be enough to see that he was not who he said he was. That so many ran with it, to me, showcases both an intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity. We will see if lessons were learned.

All that said, this was a very well-written post.

RE: The story
This scenario is just another example of how easy and powerful social engineering can be.

But the real tragedy is that if this starts happening “en masse”, society will grow to be very untrusting of our fellow (wo)man on a huge scale, and everything will have to be proven to the nth degree. Call me old fashioned, but I like the idea of trust. Critical thinking is absolutely necessary too, but there needs to be a balance between the two.

This was a well-written post. Keep ‘em coming!

Two things: I clipped this article for Social Median, because I am just that much of a New Media Bimbo. And you have a Chili’s coupon ad totally covering your banner.

I will say Kim Pearson at blogher strongly cautioned everyone when they story broke and reminded us all to be wary of those annon sources, etc.

On the other stuff- the good ones will rise to the top, just like in any industry. Those who are not credible will be treated as such, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Let me know when they’re gone, and I’ll return.