responded to the Little Red Book hoax that ran in the newspaper, acknowledging that the original story should not have run until they interviewed the student making the claim:
We -- reporter and editors -- failed here because we put our faith in what two college professors told us. We should have held off publishing the story until we had a chance to judge the student's credibility for ourselves.
The student's name continues to be kept private, to the chagrin of bloggers calling for his head. I originally believed that he should be named, like any confidential source who burns a journalist with knowingly false information, but it's worth noting that the student didn't talk to reporter Aaron Nicodemus until after the first story ran.
I have been half assed watching this story develop and it is really starting to get interesting. The unfortunate side of the story is that if someone is actually oppressed while doing something legal, they will most likely suffer the boy who cried wolf syndrome.
It is an oxymoron that public information should be private.
Need anything more be said?