Why is TNR protecting an dishonest source?

I have just received an e-mail from TNR editor Frank Foer which said they thought the apology is adequate and "they had nothing more to add". It was bad enough they tacked on Gilliard-gate to their mistake on their reporting. But now, they're defending a dishonest source, who sends e-mails withour any proof of their accuracy

My question is simple: why are they protecting a dishonest source on a story? They know the person in question lied to them about my words, yet they continue to protect them. Why would they do this?

Apology or not, this is about credibility and their lack of it. How can anyone trust Jason Zengerle's words again? If they were to face legal action in the future, from an issue unrelated to this, counsel would surely contact me about this matter, as well as use it against them.

This isn't about me, except for those words. It is, however, about how badly and dishonestly this whole affair has been handled. It was sloppy, an embarassment and TNR cannot wish it away. Until they deal with this in a forthright manner, their critics will always say "how can you trust them, they posted that fake e-mail", regardless of the facts of the story.

Even if they discovered a conflict between Kos's business interests and his blog, who could ever trust them to be seen as a fair reporter on that.

I used to think the TNR, despite years of scandal, had some ethics left. I am dismayed to find out differently, and first hand.

I cannot ever imagine cooperating with TNR for any reason, not because I bear them
some grudge, I don't. Saddened and disappointed, obviously. But how can one cooperate with a magazine who's website prints fictional words and then protects the source of those words.

I think protecting that source is a moral and ethical mistake which will have a long lasting effect on their already damaged reputation. Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass are a heavy burden to bear. It would be a shame to add Jason Zengerle and his source to that burden.