Ottawa was buzzing Tuesday morning after the Toronto Star broke the incredible news that three Liberal MPs were looking to cross the floor to join the Conservative Government.

What a scoop!

However by mid-day, it had become clear the story was false. By Wednesday morning, the Toronto Star had backed away from the story, and the name of the "Conservative government official" had become public.

The whole sorry affair reveals some of the more questionable techniques practiced by journalists covering politics in Ottawa - namely the reliance on unnamed sources. These practices, I should point out, are in no way unique to the Toronto Star or the reporter in question - they are frequently employed by many in the Canadian media.

I know, this sounds a bit hypocritical coming from the guy who until recently made a living being an unnamed "PMO official", but let me explain.

Ottawa is, as many Canadians suspect, frequently a cesspool of partisan gossip. There is a constant stream of rumours on everything from speculation on what will be in the budget, to the sexual antics and orientation of various MPs and staff. Sometimes these rumours are true, but frequently they are half-baked and designed to damage a political opponent - often a leadership rival from within one's own party.

Of course much of this gossip is given to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery on the condition of anonymity with the hope it will be reported.

It is my experience that most journalists are pretty conscientious and try to separate the truth from the politically motivated spin. They do this by asking a few critical questions:

1. Is the source in a position to know this information?

2. Is there a clear political agenda motivating the source?

3. Most importantly, is this something can be verified by other credible sources? Is it true?

The story of floor crossing MPs on Tuesday fell down on a number of levels.

The source was revealed to be the Communications Director in the office of the Minister of Immigration. We don't know exactly what was said, but there is little reason to doubt the reporter's characterization of the conversation. However, having been involved in a few floor crossings myself, I can testify that this is not something that a staffer at that level would be privy to, even if it were true.

Discussions for the rather unpleasant business of floor crossing are usually conducted under a heavy veil of secrecy, and at the most senior level. Any publicity would risk scaring off the MP in question, and leave the parties involved in an embarrassing situation.

Add to that the source's obvious partisan motivations, and alarm bells should have been ringing very loudly.

So let's move to the most important test: can it be verified? Is it true?

One can assume if the Star had been able to fully confirm the information with a second or third credible source, it would have referenced them in the story. Moreover, once the story ran, the rest of the Ottawa Press Gallery would have been able to confirm the facts.

But it appears not enough was done to check if this was true until after the story was published. The reality is this was simply a lead sparked by uninformed, partisan gossip that should have been dropped upon further investigation. The reporter in question, and the Toronto Star, should feel justifiably angry if they were misled by a source, and any source who intentionally misleads a reporter face natural consequences for their actions. However, none of that changes the fact that this story should never have gone to print in the first place.

This is one case, but there are so many others. Think back to the dozens of "anonymous sources" that used to dish dirt on each other during the Chretien-Martin civil war. And who doesn't remember the phony "wafer-gate story" about the Prime Minister allegedly pocketing a communion wafer. That story's origin was traced back to a single anonymous partisan source, and resulted in the suspension of the paper's publisher and firing of the editor. This goes on all the time, and in the name of good journalism, it should be addressed.

That is why there are tough standards in place in many media outlets around the world when it comes to the use of anonymous sources. The New York Times policy states that anonymous sources should only be used as "a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information in not available any other way."

These sort of tough guidelines are there for the protection of the media, as well as the protection of those affected by stories that turn out to be less than true.

From lobbyist registries, to clear rules for government contracting, the Canadian public has long spoken out in favour of increased accountability and transparency in its public institutions. Perhaps it is time for a greater debate on these issues when it comes to our most important public institution - the media.

Kory Teneycke is the former Director of Communication in the Office of the Prime Minister.

[ Any views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not of National Newswatch ]