Bias Or Sloppy Journalism?

So is this article an example of bias or sloppy journalism?

I think one could fairly make the case for either one. The article repeatedly refers to anonymous, off-the-record critics of Bush's use of inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" and conveys the impression that all such "experts" are opposed. For example, such anonymous "experts" or "analysts" or "observers" or "diplomat[s]" are used to convey criticism in paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (though these "analysts" think Iran may actually be doing what Bush suggested), 12, and 13 at the very least. One of the few named sources is the editor of a paper identified as a "reform" newspaper. The interview seems to be heavy on quotes from anonymous diplomats (who, may have their own agenda) and short on quotes defending the President's criticism.

I think one could make an argument that the journalist failed to convey the complexities of this debate, producing somewhat of a one-sided piece. Was it on purpose, or did he not know any better?

[Posted at 14:13 CST on 02/17/02] [Link]