Normal Rules

Normally, if journalists were actually following their own rules, the revelation that a source had knowingly lied to the reporter would discredit all future information from that source. Or at the very least make reporting based on anything that source said subject to rigorous checking and verification by independent sources. Journalists covering the war on terror haven't been following that rule, however. Reports from American military sources last week asserted that an air strike killed Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, a Taliban leader. Those reports were immediately and vehemently denied by Taliban spokesmen.

Only the reports have been confirmed as completely true. And the Taliban confirmed that they lied about it.

The U.S. military said last week Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, who had close links to Osama bin Laden, had been killed in an air strike in Helmand province — a claim rejected by a Taliban commander and spokesman at the time.

But a senior Taliban commander who declined to be identified confirmed Osmani had been killed.

"He has died. We got this information on the day of the strike but our leadership ordered us not to disclose it," the commander, speaking by telephone, told a Reuters reporter in the Pakistani border town of Chaman.

"He was not only an experienced military commander but also good in making financial transactions for us. He had good contacts," he said, without elaborating.

"His death will have some bad impact on our movement for some time," he added.

The media reported those vehement denials as straight news when they reported about the American claims. As I said at the start, normal rules would now make any journalist think more than twice before reporting anything a Taliban spokesman said.

Want to bet they won't?