How can a journalist ever consider themselves to have self esteem in their work if they never read the primary documents that are central to the story? She wri

How can a journalist ever consider themselves to have self esteem in their work if they never read the primary documents that are central to the story? She writes: "Motherboard has not viewed the full document, but a screenshot we reviewed."... That's all! The article then follows is a kind of social media reaction recap. Possibly reactions by some people who also have not read the actual primary source, perhaps? (How can we tell?) Shoddy journalism if that is the case. I mean the whole thing sure sounds like it's pretty bad, but sounds like is literally hearsay and not good journalism. Edits - perhaps the author of the article has reasons for not publishing the screenshot they are basing their reporting on? Could it be copyright / permission from the document author, or the screenshot maker?