In this case, there is no need for such risk taking. As I understand it, the journalists have been supplied with copies of the specific document(s). They can

In this case, there is no need for such risk taking. As I understand it, the journalists have been supplied with copies of the specific document(s). They can then ask the relevant administration whether the document is genuine. If the adminsitration does not deny the legitimacy of the document, there's your proof. (These are not classified documents. There's no "we can't respond" cover for them, in this case.) This is also a common journalistic practice. I'd also expect them to pursue multiple sourcing for the story. Although, with the document(s) at hand, and the course I described possible, that's not strictly necessary. P.S. I'll add that, more broadly, document sharing is not without risk. The government as well as private entities have taken to distributing "marked" documents that can be tracked back to original recipients. Not in all nor anything like the majority of cases. Just some specific ones. That marking can be overt, or covert. The latter case can include slight variations in content that, particularly if someone has only one exemplar, can be difficult to detect and at best only suspected. Anyway... speaking VERY generally, a central if sometimes unspoken role of ANY organization is mitigating risk to its participants. I would not expect anything different from journalism. I would not expect people to take on unnecessary risk. When people name themselves in such circumstances, it's to accomplish something additional. That doesn't seem to be needed, here. I don't see much reasoned doubt of the story, and I've yet to see a denial from "the government". Ok, too much caffeine, here. Sorry for my runaway keyboard. P.P.S. I can't yet reply to your reply, but I wanted to say, "fair enough". With the caveat I already added, above -- apparently, while you were replying -- that original documents sometimes have to be presented in an information-retaining representation, where overt or covert marking may betray the source. (For example, the woman in Georgia who landed in jail... this past year or so. Win-something or other? The press didn't screen the documents she provided, and they were readily traced back to her. Then apparently corroborated by FBI using system access logs. Apparently, because at the time I last read about it, methodologies were not being confirmed.)