Good point. Access to a confidential source (Obama, a seal, a parent, etc.) would seem to motivate the author to point out its nature and possible fallibility o

Good point. Access to a confidential source (Obama, a seal, a parent, etc.) would seem to motivate the author to point out its nature and possible fallibility of the account while still enjoying the license to use the account as the basis for a gripping article. That this author did not do the former suggests a lack of precision that is quite unlike the New Yorker, particular insofar as the subtle "tropes" that its articles occupy are concerned. Even a byline like "Rumors from Pakistan" could have allowed the article to be appreciated at face value without the claim to factual detail that was made.