"No editor would willfully ignore evidence of a reporter manufacturing stories the way The Wire's Sun editors do. It would never be worth it." -- David Plotz

I suspect there are oil industry executives who claim that no oil company would ever let a known drunk pilot a giant tanker; tobacco company executives who say that no cigarette manufacturer would ever cover up evidence of a link between its product and disease; financial executives who claim no CFO would ever concoct a series of frauds to inflate his company share price.

So the question is, does Plotz really believe that the kind of people who own newspapers (Rupert Murdoch, for example) are inherently more noble, more ethical, than those who own other companies? That they are uniquely concerned about the reputation of their companies, immune from the pressure to sacrifice a little long-term credibility in exchange for short-term profits?

Or does he believe that all institutions are run by men with the purest of motives, and it's only a few bad apples in the lower ranks who sully the reputation of businessmen everywhere?

I'm sorry, but Plotz is either deluded or naive. Everyone in business understands that covering up unethical behavior has negative long-term consequences. They know it's not worth it. But people in every other industry do it and it's impossible for me to believe -- having worked in the media my entire life -- that people in the newspaper industry are unique.

What's worse, it's this attitude -- that newspaper executives are somehow nobler, more pure of heart, more ethical, less prone to flaws and foibles than the rest of the human race -- that alienates so many people from the press.

yes--plotz and goldberg must think that every Blair or Cooke or "Templeton" has been caught or will eventually be found out. there must be many who have gotten away with it--and i bet some are now editors. someone, somewhere must have a journalistic award that wasn't earned.