Tell me, then. Suppose a source is bound by rules or law not to comment — to do his or her best to neither confirm nor deny. Lots of situations like that from your hospital desk to the Oval Office.

So Nurse Rove answers the hospital phone and you ask about Medicade policy and then as a “by the way” sort of change of topic you ask: “Oh, did Joe Wilson’s widow use his name or her maiden name?”

And Nurse Rove says: “So, you heard that he died, huh? Well, I’m not allowed to comment on that — I’ve probably said too much already. Anyhow, if you have anymore Medicare questions, call. Gotta go. Bye.”

What does that mean to a reporter? Honestly? I don’t see that as confirmation — I really don’t see that. I _DO_ see how tone of voice and rhythm and all could convey more or less shading to the topic. But I don’t see how a journalist would be willing to go out and hang his name on a report with no more “confirmation” than a source’s echo-statement showing that the implications of the question are clear.

What are the payoff/penalty schemes that would lead to a journalist risking being wrong so badly?

It seems to me that the payoff — getting the scoop on the “widow Wilson” – - must be hugely more consequential than the penality for false reports and –in this example — premature obituaries. Would a reporter ever be fined a day or week’s pay for screwing up such a report? Is there any penalty at all?

Should there be?

That’s just priceless.

I don’t (yet) have any personal experience with newsroom journalists, but Jay Rosen, professor and former department chair of Journalism at NYU, does. Over at his blog, PressThink (another of my must-reads), he has an ongoing series – “Journalism Is Itself A Religion,” “Deep Throat, J-School and Newsroom Religion,” and “‘When I’m Reporting, I’m A Citizen Of The World’” – that I think will prove very helpful in answering your question.

Have reporters started to internalize the general feeling about them (brainless TV egos and/or amoral potentially traitorous bottom feeders), in the same way that lawyers have? Most of my friends who are lawyers have the best lawyer jokes, just to show that they know them, and are ok with being scum. Did I say ‘friends’? Anyway,

It seems, based on the articles that reporters write about journalism, that the profession still, bless its black little heart, has a heroic self image. Is that all tongue in cheek? Or is it just that the sort of person who writes an article about the “soul of journalism” is completely out of touch as a general rule?