No. However, the lack of legal obligation to reveal sources does not increase the credibility to be given to vague reports garnered from "unnamed sources." We have to look carefully at what is being said in each instance, and determine how specific and how credible the report sounds.Brian Peacock wrote: Yeah, but the Navy SEALs still ripped Al Q a new one he?
Anyway, do you think journalists should be legally compelled to reveal their sources?
A "military official" could be anybody in the military - it could be someone who had nothing at all to do with the mission itself. And, what they "reported" was only paraphrased in the article, not quoted. Reporters often get it wrong when paraphrasing - they tweak meaning, and push an agenda. Even when acting innocently, they get it wrong often enough to raise our skepticism antennae.
Here, the assertion set forth in the article just doesn't make any sense. Trump supposedly went off half-cocked and just ordered a mission when there wasn't enough intelligence, planning an backup. However, the article says farther down that Centcom does the planning, intelligence and backup. It wouldn't be for the President to know if it's enough. So, did Trump hear Centcom say that the mission wasn't ready, and he said "aww, fuck it man, just go in and kill dem muthafuggahs!!!?" The article doesn't say that.
The article is ridiculous, and the author should be ashamed of herself.