Bob Novak and revelation of sources

Bob Novak is coming under some scrutiny for saying CBS should reveal their source of the disputed memos from last week's 60 Minutes II. Some news outlets are latching onto this story because Novak refused to reveal his source in the Valerie Plame story earlier this year. I'd like to make a clear distinction here, and I know others have already said this, but it can't be said enough. Novak's source deserves protection because that person gave him a legitimate story. CBS's source gave them a bum story. Because of that, CBS would have every right to burn the source. Protection of sources by reporters has never been done because of some noble cause; it is done because future sources will likely not give you a story if they know that you regularly reveal your sources. In the case of a bad source, however, that is exactly the message you want to send: give me a fraudulent story, and I will reveal you.

Only three things, or a combination thereof, can explain why CBS is sticking by this story and sticking by their source. One, they are holding out hope that this story will be soon forgotten, and they can get away with not admitting guilt. Two, they are so arrogant as to believe that amateur journalists (i.e. the blogosphere) has no right to question their reports. Three, revealing their source will even make them look worse, or they were actively in cahoots with a source well placed in a political campaign. My guess right now is that it is a combination of all three.