On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

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

Joe, below is the original letter sent to the Post:

****************************
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

"Some terrorism experts...view..."

"The more common view...is..."

"Two officials said..."

"...intelligence sources were reporting..."

"...one official said..."

"...is based on the judgement (sic) from many in the intelligence
community..."

"...senior Bush administration officials..."

"...members of congress..."

"...said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

"A defense official with access..."

"Another senior administration (sic) ..."

"Some experts believe..."

"But most others said they believe..."

Is Dana reporting something here, or is she making up a story to fit
her agenda? She did, in fact, use actual names a few times, one of
whom is an advisor to Senator Kerry.

Is this supposed to be credible?

John L. Herring
Alexandria, VA
************************************************** *********
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?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would. Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama. It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

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

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

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.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

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?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

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

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


John H

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