Paul Farhi of the Washington Post started a controversy with a story that pointed out that the highly-regarded New Yorker story that reconstructed the raid that led U.S. military forces to, and ultimately kill, Osama Bin-Laden.
Farhi did not bad mouth the job reporter Nicholas Schmidle did on the article, "Getting Bin Laden". The writing is top notch. No one has disputed the accuracy of the story. The Post's Farhi, takes on Schmidle's sourcing. "He relied on the accounts of others who had debriefed the" SEALs, Farhi wrote. "A casual reader of the article wouldn't know that."
"Neither the article nor an editor’s note describes the sourcing for parts of the story. Schmidle, in fact, piles up so many details about some of the men, such as their thoughts at various times, that the article leaves a strong impression that he spoke with them directly," Farhi added.
What do you think? Did Schmidle and his editors need to add some kind of note or post script about the sources of the story?
Yes, I think they think they need to add some kind of note or else it is deceiving information.
ReplyDelete