It is also quite common such statements are later retracted as the so-called source made up the statements. Regardless, though, statements made by media people were planted in people's minds who heard the broadcasts.

Anyway,the writer began wondering just what the heck reporters consider as 'sources'. Does it matter about the accuracy of statements made based on info supplied by the source or should the media and various spokespeople have free rein?

An 'informed source' led this investigator to search into the allegation Newt Gingrich had received oral sex from a young compaign worker. Immediately he thought, "Wow, wouldn't this blow your dress up if true.”

This investigator got up at 4 AM and began searching the net for stories concerning Gingrich. He could have based any statement on a 'source', an 'informed source', or 'a source close to the action'.

However, as a trained researcher, the writer wants only the truth and nothing less. Accuracy means everything to him as it should to the media and our leaders in Washington.

He would be relieved of any liability for false claims should a 'source' be wrong. If the source proved wrong, he could try (a mistake, of course, unless one has the power of the networks and political party leaders behind them) keeping anyone from knowing who the original source was.

And, if it works as it normally does for the media, the case would eventually fade from the view of the public, if it ever was made public. Wheeling and dealing usually prevents this.

In effect, the media has free-rein to state anything they wish, whether it be true, false, a mixture, or just a guess made by the media's leading reporters.

This has led this investigator to not believe any info supplied by an unnamed source to people who later report the news to us.

Take the above case. Republicans and the media have repeatedly talked about how shameful, immoral, and unethical Mr. Clinton has been in the case of Lewinsky.

So far, there has not been a fact presented that Mr. Clinton had any sexual contact with Lewinsky. And, yet, Republicans and leading media people seem to be incessed over issues of morality and the like.

So why have they ignored one of their own during their rampaging against Mr. Clinton's alleged immorality? Why have they not pushed for the impeachment of Gingrich? You see, the source (me on a wild guess in a previous artilce) alluded to in this essay proved to be accurate.

Newt Gingrich, as reported in "Vanity Fair" and verified by Anne Manning, had given Gingrich oral sex when she was a young intern in the 70's. Both were married at the time. She wished to "expose his hypocrisy and abuse of power."

She further stated Gingrich would not have intercourse with her because, if he were ever questioned about it, he wanted to be able to say, "I never slept with her." Apparently, Gingrich does not understand infedility also extends to a woman other than his wife giving him oral sex.

Now, should this letter enter the public, any action pushed for by the Republicans and the media against President Clinton should also be pushed for against Gingrich.

This writer is now wondering how many other cases of immorality and unethical behaviors have been done by other leaders in our nation's capitol. Will we only know if it suits some politician’s or political party’s agenda?

Another question is whether or not illicite affairs have anything to do with our governing? I.e., is a person less effective because of an affair outside of marriage?

How about using such information to discredit? What is the purpose of discrediting? Is it used in the quest of the truth, the quest for morality, the quest to insure ethical behavior? Or is it simply used for party politics?

Are we going to insist sources used by reporters are accurate? Or are we going to allow the media and politicians to carry on as they have, bending, distorting, and generally just stomping the devil out of morality, ethics and the truth?

We will know the answers to these questions if and when all speculation, all misleading information, all fabrications, and all biased reporting is left where it belongs - out of our lives.

By the way, since sources are never named, it is very possible the sources are nothing more than a figment of a zealous reporter's imagination. Maybe that's why they aren't named.