The New Yorker has been the publisher of the best investigative journalism about the wars, and so it does seem like quite a change that it would publish a sloppy article that implied a firsthand account when none existed.
I wouldn't say it was "sloppy". The sourcing is more or less precise. And all of their most gripping stories put the reader "there"...For example, this phenomenal piece about a Texas execution of a likely innocent man:
But in that case, most of the main players had died, and so the reader already knows that he's getting details that come from letters and interviews...but we know that because we know who the main players are in the first place...In the New Yorker piece, all sources have been muddied up, deliberately, so that even if you know that no SEALs were talking, it still seems like this is a comprehensive report. But for all we know, this could be the Navy's public information officer. Or Pres. Obama himself. Neither of which would be considered the best sources for an end-all what-really-happened in-depth article.
we're all free to hypothesize. I'd start with what would be the probability that a young hapless freelance journalist knowing Urdu language (and indicating on occasion his understanding of Pashto) who somehow decided to go to freelance in Pakistan (to cover, ie. to gather and analyze info on Muslim extremism there) and who has father from intelligence community wouldn't be asked to run some small errand for CIA/whatever? Or may be a little bigger errand with much more deeper involvement ... wouldn't it increase the probability of his exposure to the info? What the probability what this article in NY is just a cashing out on the info and not a part of of the continuous operation/post operation cleaning/freelance journalist cover maintenance/etc...?
