Politico's dirt on Cain: the Good and the Bad

Politico's monday story alleging a sexual harassment scandal involving Herman Cain has received a ton of media attention. I say kudos to Politico for some aspects of the story, but Politico clearly made mistakes on others. First, the good:

Politico, a news organization known for a culture valuing speed over accuracy, did not immediately publish the story. Politico waited ten days to give Cain a chance to respond to the allegation; the Cain campaign had no comment. Clearly thorough research and good timing paid off: the story turns out to be true, and Politico can take the credit.

Now, the bad:

Politico bases the entire scoop off of unnamed sources. Most reporters now know at least one of the sources' names, but regardless, the sources' relevance to the story is not generally known. It sounds suspicious and gives Cain ample room to deny it as an attack on conservatives.

This all being said, the Washington Post should also be criticized for the story it published on Monday covering Politico's story. Sure, proper attribution was given throughout the article, but actually the entire article simply restated information Politico had already published. Essentially, the journalist read the politico article, summarized it, and tried to pass it off as news. If a paper decides to write about a breaking news story, it should at the very least include some original reporting. This story has none.