>It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred. It's hard to take things seriously when pe

>It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred. It's hard to take things seriously when people/organizations do not take/put skin in the game. From a risk perspective it is genuis, but from a readers perspective it is problematic in my opinion.( I am not a fan of gossip) What's stranger to me is how you assume that they fact check.... For all I know they do, but it defeats the purpose of confidentiality agreements if sources speak up when they are explicitly told not too. (I am referring to confidential finance contracts)