[jjk166]

> In terms of what the media says: typically, they report on off-the-record remarks from officials and leaks. That's just how the game is played.

This isn't how the game is supposed to be played and is a symptom of the erosion of the media's journalistic integrity. Anonymous sources can tell you where the bodies are buried, but you still need to dig up the bodies. One would think if you're going through all the trouble to track down three different sources who are both competent and trustworthy to comment on who the government suspects, that you'd take the opportunity to ask a follow up question like "why do you think it was them?" Yeah, everyone wants to be the first to break a story, and real investigation is a lot harder than tabloid journalism, but that's the job, or at least that's what it used to be.

[_kbh_]

And herein lies the problem, anyone who actually knows who it is, is not going to tell you how they know. The intelligence that was used to discover who the attacker, is much more valuable than the information of who the attacker is. The best you'd probably get is 'classified sources/methods/intelligence'.

[jjk166]

And anyone who doesn't know can give you just as much information. If you don't substantiate the rumor, it remains an unsubstantiated rumor.