I think there is a big difference between anonymous posts/articles that contain information that is independently verifiable to be true whether you know the identity of the writer or not (i.e. news), and anonymous posts/articles that are 100% hearsay/unverfiable as well as anonymous (i.e. gossip).
Anonymous, unverifiable second-hand information is not news, whether you agree with the presented information or not. At best, it is an anonymous editorial, and grammatic errors aside, any serious journalist who turned that article in as "news" without any follow-up would be laughed out of the editor's office and/or fired for their lazy journalism.
Consider that the writer could have stated the exact opposite, that "Gonzalez loved PSA/DNA and JSA and sang their praises for all they had done to help clean up fraud on eBay," and it would be just as unverifiable.
Now if the writer wanted to post the actual full e-mail, or a follow-up interview with Gonzalez, or the number of sellers who had been banned, or any other shred of verifiable information, then it might be newsworthy. Otherwise, for all the reader knows, the whole thing could be completely fabricated, and he doesn't even know who to address the necessary follow-up questions to.
Edited to add: Does anybody know Gonzalez or have a way to get in touch with him to verify the statements he is quoted on and whether they are presented accurately (not out of context)?
Last edited by thecatspajamas; 08-15-2012 at 11:11 AM.
|