This editorial in the NY Times today argues that “reporters cannot apply ideology when protecting their sources.” It’s not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of judgment.

The Times writes:

Not all confidential sources are Deep Throat, or heroic corporate whistle-blowers. Sometimes they are government officials who are hoping to spread information that will embarrass their political opponents or promote a particular agenda.

We can argue about whether Karl Rove was justified in trying to set the record straight about Joe Wilson, but for now let’s set that aside and accept that of these two kinds of confidential sources, Rove was the latter.

The Times goes on:

But the hard truth is that no reporter can choose the circumstances for upholding a principle. It doesn’t matter whether we think a source is a good person or has good motivations. A reporter promises confidentiality, and the paper backs up the journalist because otherwise the public will not learn what it needs to know.

Actually, a reporter can choose the circumstances for upholding a principle — such as when another principle supersedes it. People make judgments about such matters all the time. When two or more competing principles are irreconcilable, something has to give. Jacob Weisberg explained the Times’ judgment:

Journalists make a fetish of anonymous sources. They do so for reasons ethical, psychological, and anthropological, including genuine principle, the lure of heroism, and