Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity? Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national se

Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity? Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national security" pieces. Some will argue that this anonymity is for "sources" rather than "subjects", but invariably those groups are the same. Deep-state and MIC reptiles talk their own books, using these media firms as sock-puppets. Without anonymity the whole exercise would be obviously pointless. With anonymity they're able to stoke lots of fear of brown people.