I am in two minds with it, of course, more speculation and anonymous sources is more drama and excitement. It makes things interesting and so on. My big problem is when people choose one narrative over another BASED on anonymous sources. I am cool saying "Such and such said x and so wouldn't it be hilarious/hysterical/scary/mindblowing if y happened"
Treat what is proven as real and what is not as potential. Not fact.
But there is no "such and such" saying X. It's anonimous. It could be true, it could be fiction. There is no way of verifying the source, not even for the journalist writing the article. Yet people reading or hearing it act on it as if it could be true. Fiction is getting too big an influence.
I'm old school. News should be gathered in a way similar to science. Give sources, check sources. Nothing wrong with biased sources, as long as the context is clear.
Long time ago my dad would write reports with a colleague. To make sure they read and checked one another, they'd hide fiction or recipes in their texts, like Easter eggs for the other to find.
Nothing wrong with fiction on the Potuses either. But make it a story or a fiction novel.
