This was a report from a single source. It was an established and reliable line of reporting. It was quoted from a senior Iraqi military officer in a position to know this information.
Many have been with the show for years, and they have sources in the business, so we do know things, but until it is verified, we don't run with the story.
If information is true, if it can be verified, and if it's really important, the newspaper needs to be willing to take the risk associated with using unidentified sources.
How can an article about me or the Batman be the true story when I am not consulted or interviewed?
Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia!
Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.
Okay, I'm not in the news business, and I'm not going to tell anyone how to do their job. However, it'd be good to have news reporting that I could trust again, and there's evidence that fact-checking is an idea whose time has come.
Truth is but approved facts.
