but therein lies the problem. how does one prove a journalist is faking anonymous sources? their answer to "who was your source, and are they who they say they are?" will always be: I can't tell you, they testified under condition they remain anonymous.
if the journalist is lying, the trail goes cold as there's no other leads to follow up on.
if the journalist is telling the truth, skeptics can always point to the anonymous source as a fake and the journalist has no way to prove themselves legit.
to discredit a journalist faking anonymous sources, you essentially have to prove the negative argument that they never had a source.
rufo gains nothing by making shit up
discrediting him once will utterly destroy him
but therein lies the problem. how does one prove a journalist is faking anonymous sources? their answer to "who was your source, and are they who they say they are?" will always be: I can't tell you, they testified under condition they remain anonymous.
if the journalist is lying, the trail goes cold as there's no other leads to follow up on.
if the journalist is telling the truth, skeptics can always point to the anonymous source as a fake and the journalist has no way to prove themselves legit.
to discredit a journalist faking anonymous sources, you essentially have to prove the negative argument that they never had a source.