Interesting post at the National Review Corner this morning, which we reproduce in full (we'll take the copyright heat):
D.C. police have arrested a man who they believe is a prolific vandal (I mean, a "grafitti artist") who has defaced buildings, bridges, and street signs all over the city. He goes by the nickname "Borf," and although he's apparently been the subject of some water-cooler talk around the city, I'd never heard of him before reading a story on his arrest in today's Washington Post. My jaw dropped when I read this paragraph: "In four interviews over several months, a young man claiming credit for the Borf graffiti spoke extensively about why he did it. He did not give his real name. The Post was able to ascertain his identity as John Tsombikos independently, but did not publish a story because the man's condition for granting interviews was anonymity. He agreed, however, that if he was arrested or his identity became public, the Post would be released from this condition."
So let me get this straight: Post reporters learn the identity of a mystery man whose vandalism is costing the city, its taxpayers, and property owners a fair bit of money--and they feel bound to some kind of non-disclosure agreement with him? Reading the story, it would seem that they even met with Tsombikos/Borf before he was apprehended. And while the Post doesn't say that for certain that its crack team of journalists did not cooperate with police, it sure seems like they didn't. Not even priests are bound to their vows of silence when they learn about crimes in confessionals. The Post needs to explain its exact relationship with this criminal.
Link.
The writer (John Miller) is wrong about the statement about the confessional (which he subsequently points out), but it's still a good post.
