Reputable journalists don’t base an entire story on anonymous sources: you use anonymous sources for background, you don’t use them as primary sources. If they

Reputable journalists don’t base an entire story on anonymous sources: you use anonymous sources for background, you don’t use them as primary sources. If they don’t yet have anyone on record, then they shouldn’t be publishing stories until they do. Deep Thoat wasn’t the only source for Watergate: he was used as a means to obtain further evidence and sources. How do you fact-check anonymous? Plausible has nothing to do with it. Plenty of things can be plausible, but that doesn’t make them even slightly true. Reuters as a counterexampke, doesn’t ship anonymous stories but Bloomberg has occasionally dipped into willful innacurracy in the past. Here is one example: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/bloomberg-continues-inaccurate-and-irresponsible-coverage-of-clinton-giustra-story-535380391.html https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/bloomberg-continues-in... Assuming credibility for an anonymously sourced story is a folly, especially when the allegations are both market-moving and completely unverified. It’s irresponsible. They should have held the story until they had verifiable info.