Pointing a Finger at the Press

That sounds reasonable. But at the time, Gasparino, for one, sensed that Cox might be prepared to go further and faster in his investigation of journalists: "To be honest, I am not all that comforted by Cox's go-slow approach...under certain circumstances, Cox might not have a problem hauling a bunch of journalists down to SEC headquarters and having them answer questions and possibly hand over their sources."

The SEC's director of enforcement, Linda Chatman Thomsen—who signed off on the subpoenas to journalists in the Overstock case—issued a statement on September 17 about the current crisis in the financial sector, declaring: "The Enforcement Division has been investigating and will continue to investigate any suggestion of manipulative trading. We are committed to using every weapon in our arsenal to combat market manipulation that threatens investors and capital markets."

It must be noted that the SEC has taken sharp criticism for not monitoring banks like Bear closely enough in the months leading up to the crisis. Few would doubt that those banks were in precarious health. But if the patient was sick, the real question is whether the media yanked the IV and put a pillow over his head.

Media ethics experts generally agree, of course, that once a source has demonstrably lied to a reporter, that reporter has no obligation to protect the source.

CNBC's posture has been unapologetic. "We stand behind our reporters and our reporting," a CNBC spokesperson told the industry trade blog TVNewser.

"CNBC didn't report rumors," Gasparino told the same outlet. "What we were talking about was market activity."

Both Faber and Gasparino declined to comment for this article, even to explain the network's standards for using unattributed sources.

I heard from a CNBC spokesman this morning who reiterated that CNBC stands by its reporters and its reporting. It’s also been pointed out to me by colleagues that I, too, have acted as an anonymous source in the past, though on different stories than Bear Stearns and on behalf of different clients.

"If viewers don't know that there are some internal controls about anonymous sources, that's a real problem," says Jeff Poor, a media ethics specialist at the conservative-leaning Media Research Center. "I talk to reporters all the time about standards and bias, but NBC just refuses to discuss it."

In the current climate, when confidence in the financial markets is so crucial, the standards for accurate and verifiable reporting ought to be at their highest. And for an American public already deeply skeptical about the news media, it isn't enough for reporters simply to say, Trust us but don't investigate. That posture amounts to watchdog hypocrisy: accountability for thee but not for me.

Update: I heard from a CNBC spokesman this morning who reiterated that CNBC stands by its reporters and its reporting. It’s also been pointed out to me by colleagues that I, too, have acted as an anonymous source in the past, though on different stories than Bear Stearns and on behalf of different clients.