[huitzitziltzin]

> If its unconfirmed/unproven, as a journalist, shouldn't you not publish it.

This might be an extremely high standard, depending on what you mean by "if it's unconfirmed/unproven."

All kinds of things are commonly reported in newspapers with the qualifier "sources close to X say..." - should newspapers avoid publishing such things? I am not sure that would be good for us as readers.

These allegations clearly fall close to the boundary on the other side of this field: in retrospect it seems like many of them are fictional. (Though the (literal, criminal) indictment mentioned in this piece is of a guy who was a source for only a few of the many things in the document.) But I think your standard is too high.

Doing your best as a journalist to confirm something to the extent that you can and then calling unconfirmed, but potentially interesting or troubling allegations just that seems like a reasonable compromise.