reliable sources?

This morning I caught part of Howard Kurtz' weekly media watch talkfest on CNN. It's too early to find an official transcript, but from the e-mail I sent to Kurtz shortly thereafter you should be able to pick up the gist.

Mr. Kurtz:

Just watched your panel's comments on the Alex Polier affair (or lack of an affair, as the case may be).

For a media watchdog program, your presentation was brazenly one-sided. Certainly you are aware of reports that (1) Democratic operative Chris Lehane was shopping the Polier story around for some time; and (2) that Gen. Clark reportedly made an off-the-record comment that Kerry would be sunk over an intern issue.

Now, I will not pretend that either of these are confirmed facts: I simply do not know. But both points are relevant to the discussion. Unfortunately both you and the panel were content to portray the rumor as arising solely from the fever swamps of conservative websites and talk radio—and this in spite of the fact that many conservatives (including the people at the National Review blog) were reluctant to even touch the story.

I am curious: Do journalistic ethics dictate that if a comment is given off the record, reporters not present are therefore required to pretend that it never happened?

(I'm not being flippant; that's a real question.)

Sincerely,

Anthony Perez-Miller

True confessions: I was being a little flippant. Nonetheless, if the answer to my question is yes then one must wonder when journalistic “ethics” become indistinguishable from, well, lying.

And I'm not just picking on CNN here. Occasionally I also watch Eric Burns' Newswatch on Fox. The degree to which that panel sometimes treats the journalistic profession as a kind of secular priesthood is equally galling.

UPDATE: Mickey Kaus labels Kurtz “probably the most conspicuous unaddressed walking conflict in Big Journalism.” (More here.)