New York Times imploding from the inside.

[muwarrior69]

You need to follow better sources then.

Anonymous is quoted more than any other and is the most authoritative source.

[MUBurrow]

Brother Heise, an absolutely fascinating perspective and one that I don't think is wrong. Brother MUeng correctly pointed that there has been bias in the media since it's invention. What kept publishers working was the barriers to entry for so-called amateur journalists were so high that you had to be wealthy to communicate to the world.

...

As a final note, I was educated at Marquette in the 1970s. That was a golden age of journalism in the sense that reporters legitimately tried to be fair, comprehensive and objective. Those days ended about the time USA Today debuted.

These two paragraphs, and particularly the bolded, seem to directly contradict each other.

[Hards Alumni]

Anonymous is quoted more than any other and is the most authoritative source.

I understand the problem that some people have with quoting anonymous sources.  But should a person put their job on the line to get a story to a journalist?  Should they be free from retaliation if they do?  If you say they have to put their name to it, you're asking for a world that is even MORE corrupt than the one we live in.  You know the reason Trump hates anonymous sources?  Because he can't retaliate.  He rules with fear and demands loyalty. 

Typically, any journalist worth a damn will get a tip, and then verify it with more sources.  Stories of merit aren't run with a single person's account.  Having said that, mistakes are made, and when they are stories get retracted.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.