Nicholas Blanford's contribution to the Time magazine article

Blanford spoke to New TV.  He said that he did not interview one of the four suspects and that he did not know about the interview that his editors in New York told him about.  He said that his "contribution" to the piece was in the analysis.  The interviewer smartly told him that he commented about how "relaxed" the Hizbullah member was.  He said that yes he commented on how relaxed he was but he constructed that impression not from seeing the man but from reading the interview.  So Blanford can now psychologically analyze individuals without meeting them: he simply needs to read (fabricated) interviews with them.  Welcome to the journalism of Time magazine.  I have said this before to Americans: I respect more the standards and accuracy of National Inquirer than Time or Newsweek.  I really think that the former check sources better than the last two.  This is one example.