I also hosted a topic on using friends as sources, and what implications that may have:

"A few months ago, the New York Times Sunday Styles Section ran a correction, indicating that a reporter interviewed a friend of a friend but did not disclose it. When is interviewing friends and acquaintances a conflict of interest, and when is it just lazy reporting? Or is it actually okay? Does it vary in writing genres? What have you learned from your experiences and interaction with editors?"

Folks opined...

"I am currently working on a medical story. Incidentally, my brother-in-law, a doctor, is an expert in the field that I'm covering. I interviewed him, but am deciding whether it's appropriate to use him as an expert. He's never been interviewed by the press before, but he offers an interesting perspective that my other experts and sources lack. He also the experience and credentials to back up his claims.

In the end, however, I feel like it's violating some code of ethics. I'm curious what others think..."

"I think it depends on the type of story and the context. If I needed an anecdote that may disclose something private/potentially embarrassing, I would avoid asking around among my friends and family to see if anyone knows of anyone who might be appropriate to interview. Besides the fact that it could damage a personal relationship of mine if what made it into the story showed the person in a negative light, I think that using people I know might affect what I decide to put in the story and in the end, that story could suffer.

But say I just needed various people's perspectives/opinions on a topic of general interest; I don't think there would be any harm in asking around in family and friendship circles to see who might want to be quoted. But I've found that in the past several years, with the internet, asking around and hoping to find a match for a story is less effective than simply digging around online."

"I personally cannot decide. My day job involves working for a medical journal and I understand their version of 'conflict of interest,' hence if I'm working on a story about the bankruptcy of Atkins yet my brother works for a low-carb company and I interview him saying ''there's nothing wrong with Atkins!'' then that's a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, I have a friend who works for a ladies' magazine and she routinely sends out queries saying ''I need your brief stories about XXX'' and I don't see anything wrong with helping her out with that."

"In my mind the issue is really simple: if the person you are interviewing is relevant to the story and they are being completely legit about the connect and you have nothing financially to gain from publicizing them I don't understand why it would be a problem. I've been a journalist for more than 20 years and have quoted people I know several times. I interviewed one of my best friends for a sidebar to a story on sleep disorders, for example, because her story was such a good example of how it can affect people's lives. Did I interview other ''real people''? Yes. Did I choose to use her because it was the best example and not because I was just lazy? Yes. Did I make up anything? No.

One big advantage of using personal contacts to find ''real people'' is that you have some sense of them being who they say they are.

But the much bigger question is whether interviewing people you know puts you in an ackward situation if the story is edited or delayed. I generally prefer not to interview people I know because you often have to go back and tell them, ''Well... I didn't use the qutoes from you because they just weren't that good.''

Another reason to find strangers is to bring some geographic and demographic diversity to stories. How often in women's magazines have you seen all the examples be 29 year old publicity people?

It would be a completely different matter if you were to pose as a journalist but were really working as a publicitist, particularly if you were paid. That is really wrong and would certainly get you in hot water."

"I think that in [using a friend of a friend] instance you're okay. In the end it's a small world - and depending on the subject you're covering, it may even be a smaller world. If your beat's been, say, local politics for decades, and you live in a small town, then how are you going to get around interviewing the same set of people? (And certainly, this by no means should compromise someone's objectivity.)

My vote: friends of friends of friends who you don't know personally or socially are okay. Actually, I've come across some of the best stories this way: the grapevine can be very rich."

"Full disclosure it the way to go. Would it make a difference if the editor and reader knew your relationship to the source? If there's any doubt, ask your editor ahead of time. Also ask yourself if your relationship will affect how you handle them--will you still be willing to include a quote that makes the source sound goofy, frigid, or ignorant.

"In the above example, I would say that using your brother as an expert source is a no-go (unless you're willing to write in the article, ''full disclosure: he is my brother,'' which would probably make the editor want to remove him from the story). Instead, talk to him for background that will help inform your writing and ask him for leads on whom to interview."

"It's a case-by-case decision depending on the story, the publication, and what information the friend is providing. As a freelancer, I find there are very few occasions when interviewing a friend raises any ethical or practical considerations or even needs to be disclosed to an editor. I don't know the specifics of the NY Times situation, but obviously that's a publication where appearances of impropriety take on a much greater significance than in most publications. As a practical matter, I'd say this is a non-issue for most reporters and something that I've rarely if ever had to think about or deal with over the past 25 years as a writer."

"The issue for me here would be practical rather than ethical: Sources often aren't happy with the end result of the story or the end when they are quoted. So do you want to run the risk of friction with your relative when, in reality, I suspect there are other experts who could easily be used. My feeling is if your brother-in-law is giving a perspective that is dramatically out of step with his colleagues then you should at least tell your editor that you are related to him."