Confidential sources are part and parcel of investigative journalism, and without them it's pretty difficult to break any big story.
Sure they open up a minefield when you don't know who the information is coming from and all the problems associated with that, but it's really the type of situation where you have to take the rough with the smooth.
Sure they open up a minefield when you don't know who the information is coming from and all the problems associated with that, but it's really the type of situation where you have to take the rough with the smooth.
Not sure that this is a breaking news story. Conjecture, as this thread is testament, has been around for months.
I think the media have had enough time to get their facts straight and print some truths rather than hiding behind hearsay.
Well, firstly, I was mostly commenting in general terms, rather than on this particular article. Like I said, if a source asks to remain confidential, then its professional suicide to name that source. I have no idea whether this in fact happened in this situation, but it is not all that far-fetched to think it may have.
As for the second part of your post, has the media not get their facts - as far as they as are ascertainable in the given circumstances - straight for the most part?