Skowl wrote:Except sources are kept anonymous to protect the person leaking the info. The source is not "anonymous" to members of the staff.
If we told you who was telling us this, then he/she would get in trouble and then we wouldn't get anything. It's either info from an anonymous source, or no info at all.
Let me start by apologizing, my "Watergate" remark was a bit snide.
Second, I understand the need to protect identities. But the problem lies in that Seibertron is presenting information as fact without providing readers any information to corroborate it.
With all the bogus information flying around (and let's be honest, this is the Internet), Seibertron could provide a little more context for the information. For example: Why is the information coming to light only now - what's the occasion? Can anyone else confirm the authenticity of the report? Is there hard evidence to support it?