On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:43:42 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case I would say the newspaper is the
primary source of the
> story. It draws on other primary sources for parts of it, but the
> story is clearly based on novel synthesis by the paper; investigative
> journalism is not a secondary source according to my understanding.
Original research by a reputable and significant source
(i.e. this
paper) is reportable.
Maybe. If it's judged significant. Which, in this case, it clearly
is not, since nobody else seems to be running with it. Have you read
their follow-up stories? It looks *awfully* like a vendetta.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG