Michael Isikoff Quotes

Using these unnamed sources, if done properly, carefully and fairly, provides more accountability in government.

I know that from the days of Watergate... the notion of two sources on a story has become the popular dogma about how you confirm something. And there is a lot of truth to that, but there are all kinds of ways to check to the extent that you can, a story that you get.

The job of the press is to encourage debate, not to supply the public with information.

The media's gotten lazy. They don't check anything out. You report what he reports.

I think it's a good thing that there are bloggers out there watching very closely and holding people accountable. Everyone in the news should be able to hold up to that kind of scrutiny. I'm for as much transparency in the newsgathering process as possible.

Journalism: A profession whose business is to explain to others what it personally does not understand.

Sure, some journalists use anonymous sources just because they're lazy and I think editors ought to insist on more precise identification even if they remain anonymous.

There have been many times when we have not run stories because we cannot get it verified.

I've been saying in the press that being a NY Post investigator reporter is an oxymoron.

Many have been with the show for years, and they have sources in the business, so we do know things, but until it is verified, we don't run with the story.

The democratic approach to news is a very valuable thing. We're always going to be dependent on the quality of reporting of mainstream media.

Dan Rather is guilty of not being skeptical enough about a story that was politically loaded.

Some in journalism consider themselves apart from and to some extent above the people they purport to serve.

We journalists are never so idiotic as when we analyze things that we shouldn't be analyzing.

The media are much better at keeping politicians honest and accountable. They are not willing to look the other way as they sometimes have in the past.

How do you know the news is reliable if you didn’t gather it yourself?

All in all, I just don't trust journalists - and I don't think it's a good practice for me to trust journalists.

I was increasingly disappointed in how so many of the members here of the media do their job or, rather, don't do their job: the bias at which they come from it at.

Careful authors and journalists cultivate relationships with a wide variety of sources so as to avoid bad information or being led down an inaccurate path. Gossip columnists don't particularly care if the path is inaccurate, so long as it gets attention and results in more fuel for the fire.

I think it's a lack of journalistic integrity to print things with anonymous sources.

If a journalist comes to you with a great story, one of the first questions you ask is how did you get it. How you got it is relevant to judging its accuracy and preparing yourself for any legal challenge.

I think the media's responsibility is to get to the bottom of things - to get to the truth.

I just don't understand why people decide to be journalists if they're not willing to investigate hard-hitting news stories.

So often on CNN, there's a world-class journalist interviewing campaign rejects and ideologues and silly, craven people who do not care about informing people, that aren't there to help people understand what's going on in the news.

I would love for us to get back to a place in this country where we have real journalists, where we have real news reporting.