In a September 18th article in the New York Times I came across the following in the story "A California Murder Case Raises Troubling Issues" by Carol Pogash:
The comments of the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, probably because their accounts conflict with the more positive descriptions in official military accounts, generally mirrored the statements of lawyers for the detainees, who have received their information from face-to-face interviews with their clients.
It reminded me of our discussion on sources last week in class. Should readers believe these anonymous officials? Does the paragraph give us enough reason to believe that what they said is true?
I probably wouldn’t have given this a second thought and just believed what was written before last week. I suppose I’m becoming more skeptical, I just hope I’m not becoming more cynical.
I think this written paragraph is much more believable than saying “an anonymous source said†– but it this just a fancier way of saying that? I’d love to hear what you think.
Christie Rizk @ September 19, 2005 - 7:59pm
I agree with you. I was reading Newsweek last week, and several anonymous sources came up - I got more skeptical with each one, until I finally stopped reading the article. I couldn't concentrate on the story because I was thinking the whole time about whether or not the sources were real.
»