See: "Journalistic Code of Ethics":
The first one sort of says everything about modern journalism that needs to be said, really.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
One of the most famous/infamous investigative reporting dramas of all time was the Woodward/Bernstein "Watergate" reporting in which they relied on an informant named "Deep Throat."
Unfortunately, Deep Throat knew what he was talking about. However, Deep Throat didn't provide Woodward or Bernstein with "documentation."
Do you realize how many things you're told during a day that aren't 'documented,' yet you would testify under oath happened?
My only point in asking my original question addressed the headline of this article, which emphasized that Politico had . . . no documentation. No matter how outrageously unethical the report was, I wouldn't have expected documentation, so my response was "so what? That seems like a red herring. It sounds like Clinton parsing words. What does the rest of the tape say that keeps the headline meaningful?"
I'm not saying what Politico did was right. I'm that "there was no documentation" is a red herring argument if a story is based upon what a reporter is told.