>>>>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

> Edward Snowden

Well, I think you already got the answer to your own question with your own example.

I mean, it didn't go great for Snowden, and that was even before government by vindictive man-baby. No-one is going to go on the record on this sort of thing under current conditions.

Unfortunately bad faith actors also use "anonymous sources," to push agendas that aren't exactly an accurate representation of what's going on. The FBI and CIA are notorious for this.

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.

That being said, this is clearly _not_ the FBI or the CIA. The power dynamics for anyone saying anything critical of the Trump administration in the media are strongly, strongly not in their favor.

Right but I'm saying in general stories using nothing but anonymous sources should be held with a higher level of skepticism than ones with documented sources or even corroborating anonymous sources. This doesn't seem to have either.