A Reliable Source

Volume XI
Issue 8
August 2008

A Reliable Source

No news is bad news, and bad news is good news for this month's QuestionMan interview subject. The worse things get, the more desperate reporters get for "exclusives," and the more likely they are to seek answers from A Reliable Source.

QuestionMan: Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to talk with us. I'm sure your services have been in heavy demand, especially in the last few months.
Reliable Source: I'll say. I haven't gotten so much work since the Nixon administration. There's nothing like an evasive president to drum up business.

QM: Exactly when do reporters turn to you for information?
RS: That depends on the reporter. Some, like Mike Barnicle, former columnist for the Boston Globe, came to me for almost every story. As you can see from his recent forced resignation, that's not a very good idea. Others come to me only as a last resort.

QM: Do you always provide them with the information they need?
RS: Always.

QM: That's reliability, all right, which leads us to the question of accuracy. Is there a difference between reliability and accuracy?
RS: Well, that's really a matter of semantics, isn't it? I'm 100 percent reliable as a source, which is good enough for the average news article reader. I'm as accurate as I need to be under any given set of circumstances.

QM: That's saying quite a bit, considering that qualifiers are frequently tacked to your reliable source moniker. You have been, in this month's Globe-Guardian alone, a reliable source "familiar with the national power utility system," "in the intelligence community" and "involved in the archeological analysis." How can you be all of those things and more?
RS: Hmmm. That says something about the Globe-Guardian staff, don't you think? Three stories, three reporters and three references to my humble self. Not exactly a "last resort" bunch of news gatherers, are they? Sorry, I didn't mean to insult a regular customer. To answer your question, I can be more things than Michael T. Weiss for one simple reason: I don't have to prove anything I say. Reporters are bound by their journalist ethics to protect their sources, including me. A lesser number who are less than ethical may confess to making up sources themselves, and who is going believe those few who actually identify me as their "reliable source"?

QM: I guess you just can't lose. Looks like you'll continue to do well for the foreseeable future.
RS: You can bet I will if the next administration is as inept at hiding the truth as this one. I'm going to miss Bill Clinton.

[ Home ]