Butros sent me this: "Check out this Neew York Times hit piece on Hezbollah:
You got an Israeli analyst who got his information from a not so loyal Syrian officer who got his information from a loyal Syrian officer. Not only is the information third hand why would a loyal officer open his mouth about secret bases and weapons transport?
The Israeli analyst got the information via Skype which is unsecure and the officer told him he wanted to defect before he actually defected. How dumb is this officer? How in the world did this officer contact an Israeli analyst via Skype anyway?
Apparently Anne Banard decides to hedge against this ridiculous article by placing a caveat:
"After several contacts, the officer could no longer be reached, and the information could not be verified."
So she writes a spectacular story with all this amazing information but in the end she can't even verify any of it is true. Thats New York Times journalism in a nutshell."
You got an Israeli analyst who got his information from a not so loyal Syrian officer who got his information from a loyal Syrian officer. Not only is the information third hand why would a loyal officer open his mouth about secret bases and weapons transport?
The Israeli analyst got the information via Skype which is unsecure and the officer told him he wanted to defect before he actually defected. How dumb is this officer? How in the world did this officer contact an Israeli analyst via Skype anyway?
Apparently Anne Banard decides to hedge against this ridiculous article by placing a caveat:
"After several contacts, the officer could no longer be reached, and the information could not be verified."
So she writes a spectacular story with all this amazing information but in the end she can't even verify any of it is true. Thats New York Times journalism in a nutshell."
