Reporters, the real dirt-diggers, can be very unorthodox people. That unorthodoxy is sometimes how they get results.

I have to agree with this. I'm not a fan of Marshall's approach, and the embedded piece from the ABC showed a level of behaviour by Marshall that was frankly disgusting, but there is a level to which we can sometimes justify some level of dubious behaviour in the furtherance of a greater good.

Isn't it the role of a good editor to refuse to publish a story unless the details are factually correct and it's not presented in a misleading fashion? Why isn't someone exerting editorial control over these stories, and why aren't they being named as well? We're not talking about a blogger or someone self-publishing here. Marshall is working for a major news organisation. Given he has a known history of fabricating quotes (or at least being accused of fabricating quotes), why isn't someone rigorously fact-checking and ensuring that any quotes are genuine and can be proven if challenged?

I don't mean to imply that Marshall can abdicate responsibility for bad behaviour. I just wonder where the mechanism is to contain the damage?