I hate, loathe and despise the practice of old-time, establishment reporters using unnamed sources in their stories. Any credibility that might be there is totally shot, the moment that ‘unnamed’ or ‘highly-placed’ sources are quoted as having something relevant to say about some development or other. Sy Hersh has raised this to a fine art, but at this point, whenever I hear such being quoted, I wonder what the bureaucratic angle is.
I’m sorry, but at this point, the major Washington media has about zilch credibility with me. It’s pretty well accepted at this point that J. Edgar only held on so long because he had a dossier on practically everyone of importance. The fact that the Washington Post was willing to serve as the conduit to the larger world…
Really, does the mainstream press retain any reason to hold them in respect at this point?