Is anyone at all concerned with how this blogger wrote 'tmm threated to kill a client? I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the blogger said an anonymous source told me their lives were threated by TMM. No serious journalist would have included that without 1) being allowed to name the person who was threated or in this case the source 2) verifying it with 2 different other sources who heard it as well which they would have mentioned this in the article 3) heard it themselves on a tape which they would have said they heard and kept a copy of it.

The only time you are able to say or write something without any regard is on a bathroom wall. If you're turning your blog into a bathroom wall without regard to journalist ethics you diminish the value of real news.

I'm sorry but no one has the right to make serious allegations and not be able to back them up. Lets take a look at another angle. If I blogged that I was told by a former model of XYZ that after a shoot they were given beer and after they passed out he was locked in a cage for two days... should I be allowed to write about this without naming the model? Perhaps, but should I be allowed to do this without verifying it with other sources or without seeing a copy of a tape? Should I be allowed to write about this even though there was never a police report made about it? Is it ok for me to blindly accept what an accuser is saying about someone else as the truth and pass it off as factual news to my readers? God I hope not. I tend to want my news to be more than a gossip rag, which by the way do get sued all the time and they lose a lot too.