The writer is far too timid in his criticism of Whitlock, but I don’t know that you’re being fair. He questions Whitlock’s judgement for using questionable sources, but notes that all ethics requires is to cite the source, which is true.
Instead of making this into a he-said-she-said, he should criticize Whitlock more vociferously for using such a questionable source.
I actually wrote Whitlock a letter last night condemning his use of unsourced quotes to fit his agenda. I gave him some examples in his own work, such as when he threw Sean Taylor under the bus for associating with “unsavory characters”. Taylor was asleep in bed with his wife when he was murdered. What the hell was he supposed to be doing? I hope he reads it, though I doubt he will.
Any journalist or academic is required by professional eithcs to cite the source. That is true. But what if you cite the source, you know the material is extremely damaging, and you do not make any effort to obtain information from the person harmed?
Somewhere there's a fine point on libel law for that one.
Journalism has relied on the device of "providing both sides" for a long time. It's a shoddy substitute for truth, but it does offer some fairness.
Genunine "ethics" requires something more than "he did it so I can too."
The false quote is born of genuine malice. The reporter's use of it is an act of malice.
He could try a defense along the lines of, "Everyone knows Rush is a racist, so I had no reason to doubt the accuracy," but he would be admitting his own bias.