On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:10:37 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

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.

And yet, if we are to believe statements made by the administration, Saddam's
capture *will* have an effect on the operations of Al Qaeeda, since there is
supposedly some connection between the two.

Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama.

*Any* statement can be made; defending the statement successfully is another
matter, however.

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."

Is it your belief that an extranational terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, has
the same sort of organization and depth as our military?

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.

If that is, in fact, your belief, then you are saying that the story itself is
fraudulent. Are you?

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'!

When a source speaks not-for-attribution, the journalist is ethically bound not
to name the source. If we can stipulate that the unnamed sources in the story
did, in fact, make those statements and that they were the only sources of that
information, are you saying that the reporter should have suppressed that
information?

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.

Oh, I understand the thrust of your letter to the Post; but I'm wondering
whether you believe that the information from the several unnamed sources was
fabricated, or that it should have been suppressed, if true.

Joe Parsons