I don't want to talk about that, really.
I'm more incensed by this defense of the honcho. The whole thing is pretty bad, but I save my greatest rage for this:
In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.
Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.
Now I agree that journalists should probably strive to keep personal views out of the matter, but somehow I think journalism involves more than sandwiching quotes from A and B, and calling it a day. Though I see all too much of that style of journalism, I don't think too much of it, and it hardly qualifies as a paragon of skeptical journalism.
Buzz Aldrin says he walked on the moon; Bart Sibrel says that Aldrin is a "thief, liar and coward". You decide!