A Thorough Review of the Bush - Iran Situation

Does anybody besides me ever get tired of anonymous sources?

senior commanders,
the officers,
a high-ranking general,
The high-ranking general,
a Pentagon consultant said
The senior officers in the Pentagon,
A former senior intelligence official told me,
A senior military official told me,
the former senior intelligence official said,
A retired four-star general who ran a major command, said,
The senior military official said that,
an Iran expert who advises the U.S. government told me,
a Pentagon adviser on counter-insurgency told me,
A retired American diplomat,
the former senior intelligence official told me,
the former official added. ,
A former Bush Administration official described,
the former official said,
the Pentagon consultant said,
the Pentagon consultant told me,
the former senior intelligence official said,

That's not all. I just got tired, almost as tired as I am of "expert", "former", and "senior" experts without names.

I don't think I've ever seen an article so packed with 'em.

 

Not when most of them are "former" or "retired" somethings.

Using so many anonymous sources leaves a dishonest reporter with an opportunity to make the truth whatever he likes.

I could do it and so could you.

 

Having a background in journalism I think the article is very weak, especiallly when it comes to sources.

If you cannot name t least majority of your sources, then you might as well not write the story. If someone is "retired" and won't say anything, watch out--your probably dealing with someone who was a disgruntled employee anyway.

Good post Carpro:thumbs:

 

Accusations and claims of wrong doing are cheap and easy. Anyone can make one in any situation. Any person with any agenda can speak a few words and bam a mans life is put into turmoil. When did it become right to face being accused without being able to see our accuser. Does that seem right.

If the press is going to make charges that have no witnesses then they should have some sort of accountability so that innocent peoples lives are not unjustly put into turmoil. and just because the press says it doesnt give it credibility as we learned with the Rather debocle.

Our press in this country should be ashamed they have lost all dignity and credibility. And charges without a witness should be disregarded.

 

You are absolutely correct. There is another item tht causes problems. Liable and slander laws are pretty much worthless if the person being liabled is a "popular" or "well known" person.

In reality, they do work, but not nearly as easily as you are I would have. Several stars have sued Enquirer and other magazines and have won, but it is a difficult thing to fight if you are popular.

I know we should have freedom of speech, but I also think newspapers that print negative issues about a person should be required to name their sources or at least have some checks and balances that are not in place now. Right now, they pretty much have a free ticket to say almost anything they wish.

 

I am not defending the government and the wrongs it does at times. But a person who hasnt the courage to stand up and confront those they are accusing ought not open their mouth.

The press ought not be able to keep sources confidential. That I think would produec some restraint that is needed.

 

For once I agree with Rev Mitchell. Dont get me wrong. Even though I voted twice for the guy, I wouldnt do it a third time if he could run, and will not vote for a Bush like candidate. The leadership is lacking in the white house and congress. Republicans have both. On the other hand, we have two years left of this government, and we should pray that they guide us with God's help through the situations in Iran, Korea, and Iraq. It serves no purpose to criticize just to tear someone down. If criticizing could help solve the problem, or bring our troops home sooner, I would be for it. But, division now, especially since the election is two years away, only makes the President's job harder. I sure couldnt do it. We should pray for Mr. Bush.

 

Having the press produce sources does not inhibit the freedom of the press. The press is full of fallable men and women just as the government is. They also need some checks and balances to protect us from them. The constitution does not guarantee the press to be able to keep its sources confidential. The press is and can be just as evil as government.

 

Carpro

I have read commentaries full of the same kind of commentary. "Scholars say that . . . " I think to myself, "So what! What does God's Word say?"

 

Ken

For the record . . . the First Amendment is the result of Baptist politics (preachers) placing preasure upon the early goverment to afford preachers of the Word protection from Government sponsored Church attacking believers.

 

Evidence? Sources?

 

So, if a lie, an exaggeration, or a half truth is all you can get, treat it like the truth?

I disagree. It is definitely worse than nothing.

The really bad part is that all this conjecture is considered "News and current events".

 

Hersh is a renown investigative journalist. Carpro is right that the story has an awful lot of anonymous sources, but for what it's worth, the New Yorker has a stellar reputation for fact checking. It's possible that it'll be burned on this one, but it has been a creditable source.

Hersh could be wrong, but he doesn't make things up. You don't have to believe him - just keep in mind what he wrote as the events unfold.

I'm not sure why some of you all discount sources who are retired - sometimes they are the best analysts, having the background knowledge but not being caught up in the day to day minutia.