Komen and Planned Parenthood- the case for fairness

This article indicates a very serious crisis in American Journalism.  The writer is allowed to use an anonymous source to contradict the open statements of an identified and verifiable source.  The person featured in this article is known, her credentials are known, her position in the organization is known, and if there were audio or print copies of board conversations, her exact words would be known.  Yet, the writer is allowed to contradict the featured person at every turn by citing a supposed anonymous source.  This source falls under the so-called “protected source, or whistle-blower” concept.  But the use of this so-called source is very open to gross abuse by the reporter.  We have absolutely no information about the so-called source. We don’t know if the source is the VP of human resources, the Exe. Director of funding or the window washer or the Mail room clerk, or even the figment of the reporters imagination.  So, let’s be fair here.  If I were a juror and this were a court case, I would find in favor of the defendant against the so-called “insider source.” Why? Because the law allows the accused to face their accuser.  Without this face to face confrontation, anybody could accuse anyone of anything and actually get away with it if the press agreed with the secret accuser against the public defendant.  Also, as a juror, I would be thinking of my own freedom and rights as I found in favor of the public defendant against the cowardly contra-witness.  The public officials named in this article are accountable but we are supposed to hold a voice from the dark to have credibility because , “…they feared reprisal.”  Well, such  non accountability is something this writer strongly condemns as dangerous to his own freedom.  And I believe it is dangerous to yours as well.