Friday, September 23, 2005

Dishonesty and Conspiracy

The evidence takes us to negligence. I question the fairness of anything beyond that. Consider, if dishonesty requires only proof of a mistake and and a theory about nefarious intentions, if Mike is factually wrong (e.g., if an anonymous caller tipped off the writer to the woman and he, in his blind enthusiasim, wrote the story), and I theorize that Mike's intention is to discredit the Post (of course, I know that's not really true), Mike, by his criteria, would be "dishonest." Far too far.

A practical question: why would a journalist risk his or her career over a lie that could easily be discovered by googling? That, to me, makes negligence more probable.