We're getting mixed messages here, guys

Good indicators that a news article is thinly sourced:

• The headline uses the passive voice.
• The thrust of the article relies on anonymous sources
  
• The writer qualifies the second sentence with the word "purportedly."
• A later sentence begins: "It was not confirmed how well..."
• An editorial about the story states "it is not clear how such an action would work."

The Voice went 5-for-5 this week in a follow-up to the Town Crier impression it did two weeks ago, once again attacking the work furlough inmates for their ill-mannered rambunctiousness. At least this time we are given more information about the source of these allegations -- they seem to be little old ladies who don't very much like being around poor people outside of church.

In a schizophrenic editorial, the paper sympathizes with these anonymous sources but defends the program. This is all wrong. If you really want to be the Town Crier, you don't print things in the news section that readers might plausibly interpret to conflict with the opinion of the editorial. Otherwise, what's the point of running a local paper?

To be fair, it does take a certain level of Town Crier-ness to refer to a parking garage as "gorgeous" in a headline. That is how you do cheerleading right -- shamelessly.

You go to print with the facts you have...

A great day, today. My cousin Sarah gave birth. The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush Administration for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Baseball started. And it was the first night of Passover, allowing us to remember a time when we didn't start all of the wars in the world.

So let's ruin the mood with some mean-spirited blogging...

In rather unsurprising news, Santa Clara County is looking to ax its work furlough center in Mountain View. It basically works like jail, except the inmates get to leave to go to their jobs (and this happens less). The probation department first proposed eliminating the program two years ago, but changed its mind in response to political pressure.

Unfortunately, it seems that somebody from the Town Crier snuck in a paragraph near the bottom of the Voice's recent story:

Though Whisman has always been a mostly industrial neighborhood, a recent letter to the Voice indicates that new residential development in the area could lead to complaints about the facility. The anonymous letter claims that some inmates are prone to "yelling, spitting and making comments towards women who are waiting at the light rail station" in the early morning.

I can't decide what's worse: openly speculating on the basis of a single anonymous letter, or using the news section to reprint allegations that wouldn't have been allowed in the opinion section.