> One of the reasons we know this story is bogus is because of the New York Times story which cites anonymous officials, “speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation”.
Yes, we should be skeptical of anything that is entirely sources from anonymous sources.. even if they align with what we want to believe.
And further, I'd love to see reporters start burning sources that lie to them. After all, the source is risking/destroying the reporter's credibility along the way. Unfortunately, we'll never see that as it's all an access game.
Yes, we should be skeptical of anything that is entirely sources from anonymous sources.. even if they align with what we want to believe.
And further, I'd love to see reporters start burning sources that lie to them. After all, the source is risking/destroying the reporter's credibility along the way. Unfortunately, we'll never see that as it's all an access game.