Comment by enslavedrobot
5 months ago
How do you know they didn't have multiple confirmations from different anonymous sources? Generally this is the case with high quality journalism (souce: dated a journalist).
5 months ago
How do you know they didn't have multiple confirmations from different anonymous sources? Generally this is the case with high quality journalism (souce: dated a journalist).
Their own words.
"Secret Service officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity"
Their only stated source is "USSS officials" who bafflingly demand "anonymity." I would expect the reporter to tell those /officials/ they need to allow a direct quote or to provide another source; otherwise, their information simply won't be printed.
It's the difference between being a blind mouthpiece and being a reporter.
There could be multiple USSS officials. Also they don't have to tell you if they verified the story through other channels. In fact this is common practice in my experience (source: pillow talk).
They're USSS officials. Officials being the keyword. That a bunch of people who share meetings and prerogative in the organization are saying the same thing is not an indicator of information quality. In fact, I would take it as a negative signal, and would push _much_ harder to get actual detail or corroboration.
3 replies →