1. It's a pity you stopped reading the article, because addressing the criticism of anonymous sources is about 1/3 of it. 2. A discussion of specific internal

1. It's a pity you stopped reading the article, because addressing the criticism of anonymous sources is about 1/3 of it. 2. A discussion of specific internal contradictions in the article would be interesting and valuable, unlike the original post. [Might make sense to make a new post for it, so it doesn't get buried though]. As to the "facts not comporting with reality", should I assume you have abandoned that claim? That would also be an interesting discussion. This is the whole point of the CJR article - that the media response so far has been largely fact-free.