True, it pushes reporters and editors to dig deeply, to overcome cover-ups and stonewalling, in order to alert readers to facts that sources have chosen to keep hidden. The paper has had the courage to print in the face of threats, court proceedings, and some public disfavor. The source has all the advantagesanonymity, more attention than if he held a news conference, and a friendly report by a writer who may feel an obligation. The poor reader is rarely alerted as to why the story was leaked, because this may give away the source. There is a tendency to discredit or play downfor example, last year's KGB spy defector story.
Most readers are oblivious to the intramural contests.
A democracy is dependent upon the media for information, information that tells both the bad and the good, of achievement and incompetency, about the decent and the indecent. But editors on all papers have to make sure that the lure of an exclusive story or the added sparkle to a contest entry doesn't lead to shortchanging the readers. Take a little longer, but get it all, put it in perspective, give all sides a chance, maybe even force the source to put down the mask. And, if some other newspaper does come up with the story, rise above the sophomoric response. In an era of newspaper monopoly, or near-monopoly, there should be secure editors.