Posted By: justme107 @ 03/04/2008 9:58:53 AM
Comment: I am disappointed in Newsweek's decision to grant anonymity to a man who "often invited [Iseman} into his office and did not want to be identified acknowledging that he found [Iseman} attracitve." Since Newsweek described Iseman as "attractive" in the second paragraph of this story and printed her picture, allowing people to draw their own conclusions, it seems the man would have little to no risk by admitting he was attracted to her. There are legitimate reasons to grant anonymity, but how is the public's right to know served by shielding this cowardly source? What does he add to the story that is vital to know and that could not be gotten from named sources? Nothing, as far as I can see. The placement of an unknown "insider" giving a delightfully sly quote that advances the tone of this whole piece makes me question whether the man exists at all.


Loading Menu