[chrissnell]

This article names no sources, only purported emails. It doesn’t show the full text of the emails, just short quotes. It doesn’t provide message headers [1] or any other substantive indication that they are factual. How were these vetted? I’m going to guess that they weren’t.

This article has all of the weight of a gossip column.

[1] Headers can be forged, of course, but it’s at least enough that an external party might be able to corroborate or disprove this story.

[forapurpose]

Buzzfeed does have a general reputation for accuracy; their not a propaganda outlet.

I'm fine with raising questions, but we can question everything on that level - nothing is certain. Long, involved scientific studies still have enough flaws and uncertainties to fill many HN threads. Some uncertainty doesn't wipe out all credibility.

Anonymous sources are essential to critical public information; Woodward and Bernstein never revealed their source - should the Washington Post never have published the articles?

> I’m going to guess that they weren’t.

That statement has less credibility than the article's, though at least it's acknowledged that it's a guess.