NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H
wrote:

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the
editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources
used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to
name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to
refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article
("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find
in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources
(Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible
because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.




Here's another example of a rightie not really able to think: I made no
comment on the impact of letters to the editor, but, rather, on the fact
that Herring's letter ran on Saturday.



--
Email sent to is never read.