Wash Post publishes LTTE criticizing the paper for nameless sources

[Eric J in MN]

Since George W. took office, the Washington Post has been running more articles than before with nameless sources.

It's like no one wants to go on the record anymore, and the Washington Post reporters aren't pressuring people to.

The Washington Post published a letter today criticizing the paper for too many nameless sources.
--------------------------------------------
No-Name Reporting

Saturday, January 3, 2004; Page A19

Dana Priest's Dec. 26 news story "Hussein's Capture Not Likely to Harm al Qaeda" was interesting because of the sources she cited, including:

? "U.S. intelligence agencies and terrorism experts."

? "Some terrorism experts."

? "Two officials."

? "Intelligence sources."

? "One official."

? "Many in the intelligence community."

? "Senior Bush administration officials."

? "Members of Congress."

? "A counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

? "A defense official with access."

? "Another senior administration" official.

? "Some experts."

Is this supposed to be credible?

-- John L. Herring

Alexandria

[jburton]

1. unnamed democrat kick

n/t

[neverforget]

2. Media Stenographers for Republicans should be a new PAC name.

:evilgrin:

[Skittles]

3. I've noticed this trend too

I'm convinced half the time they shit up for Rove brownie points

[The Zanti Regent]

4. HALF THE TIME?

Hell, everyone at the Whoreshington Post fights to stick their head in the Chimp's ass!