Your example assumes that most unpaid people are your avg bureaucrat salarymen, looking to pay mortages, with expensive side mistresses etc. But these are not the workers we are talking about. Here are often tech millionaires that made their money actually selling things people found enticing.
For them, the extra dollar is just a small marginal gain on their life. Whereas for the average salaryman you are referring, money is a matter of actually having food of the table.
Not all dollars earned are the same.
Some quotes from the article (was it really that hard to search for quotation marks yourself?):
>"We have been told they are looking for anti-Trump or anti-Musk language,” a third source familiar with the EPA said.
>"Be careful what you say, what you type and what you do,” a manager said, according to one of the sources.
>Last year, before Trump was elected, Musk suggested AI could be used to replace government workers, according to a person with direct knowledge of his comments. “The concept was that through taking the government data that they could build the most dynamic AI system ever,” the person said, adding that AI could then “do the work.”
Sounds like traditional media information is an article of faith for some, versus just another data point to analyze and address with skepticism in the search for truth.
The reason I said anonymous sources don't cause me to immediately dismiss articles is because I don't want to reward the admin for purposefully creating this shitty situation. I'll use other critical reading skills to determine the articles' value. It sucks that heavy reliance on anonymous sources isn't a huge flag anymore, but it is what it is.
Like, protecting sources is about as old as journalism. Without it, you’re really just a conduit for press releases.
Thats arguably what the press has been doing for the CIA in the last decade more or less.
>>> hold on, are you expecting them to name their sources? On this? Really?
Yes. edward snowden went against the security state. its not far fetched to expect more transparency over a simple govt policy related to an agency that is under the microscope (DOGE)
Particularly when trust in media is an all all time low
Particularly because of behavior just like the one displayed by reuters
Well, I think you already got the answer to your own question with your own example.
Example. "Anonymous sources in the CIA said..." That's a leak but not a real leak. You can tell because if it was a real leak, the government would track them down like Snowden.
Seems like legacy media is not pretending anymore and has transitioned into make-believe land after CNBCs airing of "unconfirmed information" about tariff pause only 1 day ago.