> So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? You're confusing what might

> So Woodward and Bernstein's reporting was worthless because you could not identify and seek out Mark Felt and ask him questions? You're confusing what might be true with what's provable. The fact that they're anonymous rumors means they're unprovable for the public (but, importantly, not necessarily for the journalist who should be using them to dig up verifiable facts). You're also ignoring that they uncovered many facts which could be verified, which one should pay attention to, while ignoring the unverifiable bits. If you're going to bring up Watergate, don't forget the words "Trust, but verify." We're not able to do that last part. Therefore we ignore the rumors--that is, we neither believe them nor assume to be false. Anything else is simply irrational. This sort of "reasoning" simply makes one gullible. You'll have nothing to fall back on but your own assumptions when the question of how you know which rumors can be trusted comes up.