When the source is a story. That's a softball question.

Writing has nothing to do with pretty manners, and less to do with sportsmanship or restraint [...]
Every writer begins as a subversive, if in nothing more than the antisocial means by which he earns his keep. Finally, every fantasist who cannibalizes himself knows that misfortune is his friend, that grief feeds and sharpens his fancy, that hatred is as sufficient a spur to creation as love (and a world more common) and that without an instinct for lunacy he will come to nothing.

There is no question that some of the material in the cache is authentic, It seems that the cache is a mixture of things, some authentic . . . others not.

I've allowed some of these points to stand, because this is a book of memory, and memory has its own story to tell. But I have done my best to make it tell a truthful story.

In former times when a big story broke, I would automatically want as many reporters out on the story as possible. Not now. There are a lot of TV news channels and the web to monitor, and it's more time-efficient to have reporters in the office. The downside is that by not having many reporters on the streets, you inevitably dilute the flavour of the story.

They may be worn out, over-used, mishandled, abused. It is a question of how reliable is the source you got it from. Unfortunately, that is not always a very safe bet.