>The vast majority of news stories depend on anonymous sources, and it's a
>matter of whether your trust the writer and editor in judging the credibility
>of the source.
Of course. But the thing that cheapened it for me was his vague attribution:
"At a September meeting at the War College, which was leaked, they told Clinton that his behavior with Monica Lewinsky would have gotten a military officer dismissed."
Who leaked it? To whom was it leaked? What was leaked? the existence of the meeting? the military's demands? (If I really wanted to be a grammatic stickler, I could point out that the sentence's construction makes it read that the War College, not the meeting, was leaked....but I won't do that.) The passive voice and the deliberate dodge in naming the source makes it seem, to me at least, like Hitchens has something to hide or that he is crafting some quotes around an already-written story. That does damage the writer's credibility, in my eyes.
>Well, what is he supposed to do if a source does not want to be made public?
Methinks he should be straight forward in naming his sources. If the source wishes to remain anonymous, perhaps he should say so. I know explicit attribution can be kind of stifling to a story's prose, but sometimes it is necessary--especially when making a claim as big as Hitchens'.
Eric Beck