Aristegui was fairly obviously played by the opposition; she should not have provided the coverage they desired.  Opposition parties in every democracy in the world produce stories or actions calling on those in power to do or say something ridiculous or making unfounded allegations just to get some coverage and damage their opponent’s credibility. Viewers and readers expect journalist to use their professional judgement in choosing where to give real stories the oxygen of publicity and when to ignore something as a publicity stunt. Unfurling banners in parliament is clearly the latter.  As a result journalists are able to present their audience with something they have good reason to believe is true. Instead Aristegui, effectively, came up with “well, some people said these, it might be true, it might not, someone should find out.” That ‘someone’ should have been her.  An equivalent would be the difference between sharing some gossip about someone at work with a colleague and sending a memo about it to that person’s boss [i] .  By mentioning this at all on air, the rumour is given credibility that it did not deserve and the President’s reputation was unfairly sullied.  [i] William Booth (Washington Post). Mexico buzzes over Calderon’s alleged drinking. Printed in the San Francisco Chronicle. 12 February 2011.