> And, furthermore, it's very common for journalists to > receive anonymous posts. Publishing implies validation, at least to a certain extent. Otherwise med

> And, furthermore, it's very common for journalists to > receive anonymous posts. Publishing implies validation, at least to a certain extent. Otherwise media become nothing more than a fully transparent channel; there's nothing useful about that in this day and age. This prank (which doesn't resemble the physician example you mention in the least) shows two things: First, fact checking and double or triple sourcing appear to be a thing of the past. Second, on the internet, anonymous tips mean nothing. Even if you disagree that the former point is an issue, you'll have to grant the latter.