"The FBI found documents containing classified intelligence regarding Iran and China at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, SAY TWO PEOPLE familiar with the matter." (Who are these two mystery people?)
"The Washington Post was the first to report that the intelligence on Iran and China was found at Trump’s Florida residence and club during the FBI’s recent search of the property.
The Post reported, BUT NBC NEWS HAS NOT CONFIRMED, that “at least one of the documents seized by the FBI describes Iran’s missile program.”
I ask again - what is your proposed solution beyond whining whenever something inconvenient for you is cited behind multiple unnamed sources? Do you propose a ban on unnamed sources? An official government board to vet and verify unnamed sources, thus hindering the ability for reporters to report things the government would rather you not know? An official industry board to vet and review things by media heads? A push for the public to fight against unnamed sources no matter how convenient or inconvenient that reporting is for their ideologies/preferred team? What?
And that hilarious caps locking above. Are y'all really pretending like if NBC NEWS had verified WaPo's reporting, that would mean a damn red cent to you? Like it wouldn't all be "Well of course EnbySemen would say that" or whatever amusing derogatory term is popular for that particular network right now? Sheesh.
"The FBI found documents containing classified intelligence regarding Iran and China at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, SAY TWO PEOPLE familiar with the matter." (Who are these two mystery people?)
"The Washington Post was the first to report that the intelligence on Iran and China was found at Trump’s Florida residence and club during the FBI’s recent search of the property.
The Post reported, BUT NBC NEWS HAS NOT CONFIRMED, that “at least one of the documents seized by the FBI describes Iran’s missile program.”
See how this works? PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fbi-found-documents-containing-classified-intel-iran-china-mar-lago-rcna53506
So, in your ideal mediascape, would there be no unnamed sources?
What if it's not tho? And you didn't answer the question. Confidence is a flimsy shield.
Media likes to abuse that term to push anything they desire
I ask again - what is your proposed solution beyond whining whenever something inconvenient for you is cited behind multiple unnamed sources? Do you propose a ban on unnamed sources? An official government board to vet and verify unnamed sources, thus hindering the ability for reporters to report things the government would rather you not know? An official industry board to vet and review things by media heads? A push for the public to fight against unnamed sources no matter how convenient or inconvenient that reporting is for their ideologies/preferred team? What?
And that hilarious caps locking above. Are y'all really pretending like if NBC NEWS had verified WaPo's reporting, that would mean a damn red cent to you? Like it wouldn't all be "Well of course EnbySemen would say that" or whatever amusing derogatory term is popular for that particular network right now? Sheesh.