Journalists need to reveal sources when in Self Defense
Confidentiality is important in journalism. Sometimes without un-named sources there would be no sources at all.
The journalistic vow of confidentiality must, however, be limited to the degree that sources cannot play journalists for chumps.
If you are told something on background that turns out to be an intentional lie, you should reveal that. You were played into deceiving the public and you should be able to protect your own credibility.
Same thing when you report something true and then the un-named source publicly questions the quality of your reporting.
If the Telegraph talked to a Romney adviser and the Romney campaign then denies it (calling the Telegraph's integrity into question) then the Telegraph is free, within any sensible code of journalistic ethics, to clarify the record if the charge against them is false.
The most an un-named source can say is denying they were the un-named source. (That is necessary, or else it would be a tedious process of elimination.) They cannot, for instance, say they know there was no source and that the paper made it all up. That would, or should, void whatever confidentiality existed.
The Telegraph is a pretty RW paper, IIRC, but no paper should allow itself be a tool in deceiving the public.
The Telegraph knows whether the Romney campaign's spin on Anglo-Saxongate (sorry, had to say it) is reasonable or a lie. Perhaps they erred in assuming someone could speak on foreign policy for the campaign who could not. Or maybe they were correct and the source was correctly identified as a Romney adviser.
If they are getting a bum-rap they are entitled (and some would say, obliged) to defend themselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read
