Journalistic Ethics

In regards to the Felt Family, Tierney pumps his chest up over journalistic ethics, but then comes out and speaks the truth anyways:

They didn't appreciate how seriously we journalists take our ethical standards.

Riiiight... if they were trying to get paid for the revelation, then I think they estimated them just fine. But as it turns out, what they take seriously is not ethics per se but the appearance thereof:

The Felts' mistake, of course, was hawking the secret directly instead of persevering with the genteel approach used by celebrities and former presidents: laundering the news through a book publisher. You don't actually have to write the book yourself, but once your name is on the cover, you've joined the literary priesthood and are pure enough to accept cash offerings.

As a mere source, though, you cannot be trusted with money, at least not according to the keepers of journalistic ethics in America. They say the money would taint the media's image, inspire lies from mercenary sources and maybe even corrupt journalists. An editor once told me that if he bought an article, he feared he would overplay it to justify the expense.

At least Tierney doesn't turn it into a rant about how good a guy Nixon was and that Felt is a baby-killer... even though he is of the conservatarian breed of the right, he still sides with Felt on this one:

Now the reporters are rushing out another book, and Mr. Felt is still not supposed to get any money from it. He deserves a cut, not only for what he did for them but for what they and their editor did to him. He risked his career to expose corruption in the White House, and they ensured that his name will be forever linked in the annals of history with a 1970's porn flick. They owe him.