If you are suggesting that I'm implying "fake news" - you are completely misunderstanding my post. I'm implying that people should hold journalists to a higher standard.
I don't know how you could have interpreted my post as anti-ethical journalism.
I will lay out for you what you are missing, and why people are comparing your post to Trump-isms.
Ethical journalists have sources. They confirm those sources whenever possible. They have an ethical reponsibility to protect those sources, as well as a professional interest in building and maintaining relationships with their sources so that they can continue to do their job in the future. That means writing a sourced article without naming sources who do no wish to be named, if that's the agreement the journalist comes to with the source. Of course it would boost the article's credibility to name every source. If a journalist promised sources anonymity and then put their names in the article, sources would not trust the journalist anymore, and they would stop being able to get sources to talk to them again. So even though it would boost the credibility of that one article, it would mean they can't do their job as well in the future, and they would be viewed very negatively by lots of people for a breach of professional ethics. If a source comes to a journalist and says "I have info I can share with you, on the condition that you keep me anonymous", and the journalist says "I will not keep you anonymous, I will write your name in the article", then that source will not give the information. So that's a very brief explanation of why people are rolling their eyes when you assume that just because the article doesn't cite sources by name, that it's not based on information from solid sources. You are implying that the journalist just decided "I will make up a story that people are worried about being laid off today". That's nonsensical.
Donald Trump claims that anonymized quotes are made up, and that reporters make up things when quoting sources, named or otherwise. He also seems to lack a basic understanding of how journalism works. Some posters saw an analogous lack of understanding, plus willingness to express a judgmental opinion on the topic despite lacking understanding of it, in your post. In general, if people compared my lack of understanding + still weighing in on a topic to Donald Trump, I would probably take some time to reflect more deeply on what my threshold is for "how much I know about a topic" and "whether I am going to be contributing by saying something about it".
