I'm not talking about protection of sources. I completely agree with that principle. But that's not at all what I'm talking about here. If you get information f

I'm not talking about protection of sources. I completely agree with that principle. But that's not at all what I'm talking about here. If you get information from a source who wants to remain anonymous then, if it's a leaked document you can publish it. If it's verbal information then you can follow it as a lead to find concrete information to publish. But just publishing supposed testimonials from 'protected sources' is bullshit. We have no way of knowing if those testimonials are true or just made up. So it should be ignored and that journalist should also be scorned. It's nothing but gossip. So sorry, you don't appear to understand the difference between using protected sources to acquire real information that can be published (documents or other evidence) and just publishing gossip and scuttlebutt.