Where did Politico get its reporters, Wossamotta U?

First, the publication prints a four-page-long allegation that Herman Cain sexually harassed two female employees during the 1990s. The intent being, of course, to turn people off from Cain and destroy his candidacy. The same publication that ignored the John Edwards affair/lovechild allegations while he was being considered for Vice President devoted four reporters to the Cain story.

Next, we discover that Politico‘s not big on the details of its allegations. Jonathan Martin refused to tell MSNBC exactly what Cain is accused of doing. He proclaims they’re, “not going to get into the details of exactly what happened”. Right, because what do details matter to allegations of sexual harassment?

Now we discover Politico will not reveal the source of the story or even if the tip came from a rival campaign with political and financial interest in destroying Cain. It’s a journalistic transgression so absurd that even CNN’s Wolf Blitzer can’t believe it.

Can you tell us, without getting into the specifics of who tipped you off, was it another campaign?

VOGEL: We got a tip and it was from someone outside. We managed to corroborate all of the details and more. We have to be clear here that this tip was sort of a general tip. And we through dogged reported, talked to dozens of people, both within the Restaurant Association, on the board, former staffers, people who knew the women who made these allegations and corroborated all of the details that we reported on the case.

BLITZER: But it would be significant — you are a good reporter — if it came from a political campaign, another Republican campaign. And when you say outside, maybe someone from the National Restaurants Association or whatever. You understand the interest where you got that original tip to go check this out?

VOGEL: Certainly.

And I would say that what’s more significant are the facts of the situation. And we independently corroborated and verified them.

BLITZER: I know, but you don’t want to tell us if — you don’t want to say whether or not opposition research from another campaign provided the initial tip?

VOGEL: That’s correct. We don’t think that’s — the original source is as important as the actual information…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I know the actual information is important, but the original source is important as well, if we’re looking at the whole political environment, what is going on among the Republicans, because you know we have covered a lot of campaigns. Opposition research always provides reporters, journalists, you go check out this, go check out that, you may find something good.

And I’m just curious because it is part of the presidential campaign right now whether another campaign helped you begin this reporting.

VOGEL: I mean, politics are politics, as you said. And certainly there are people who are digging up opposition research. I’m just not going to do anything that would identify — that would point towards the identity of our original source.

Why? I understand journalists protecting their sources when there could be retaliation against the source. But we’re talking a political story handed over by another political figure. No one is going to prison or placing their life at risk here.

The public does, however, have a justifiable interest in knowing whether Politico devoted four reporters to writing a four-page, detail-free allegation against the Republican frontrunner, based on a tip-off by a political rival with power and financial interest in the story going national.

And I don’t really expect Politico to reveal its specific source. But why not reveal whether the source was a rival political operation? Those are basic disclosures that protect the public from being misled. But then, Politico doesn’t care much about whether people are misled. It’s all about destroying the Republican candidates. They’re a bunch of hacks running a Democratic newsletter with a fancier name.