People are overlooking the fact that the NJ.com article

[IronEagle]

explicitly stated that they got info from sources in the Eagles organization.

Bold emphasis mine:

Rather, sources close to Jackson and within the Eagles' organization say, it originally was Jackson's off-field behavior that concerned the front office. A bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly were the original reasons for his fall from grace, sources told NJ.com.

[Drama Queen]

That damn Cooper can't keep his mouth shut.

[Raptor]

The catch is "the source"

explicitly stated that they got info from sources in the Eagles organization.

Bold emphasis mine:

and what their connection is to the organization?

A real decision maker,a disgruntled employee, or just the parking lot attendant.

That's the problem when these "journalists" quote such sources...too much room for conjecture but it does help with ratings.

[Maniac]

Note the phrasing "and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly". They treat that as a separate issue from the others.

Perhaps they didn't like the same music.

[Irish George]

that's how the profession works

and what their connection is to the organization?

A real decision maker,a disgruntled employee, or just the parking lot attendant.

That's the problem when these "journalists" quote such sources...too much room for conjecture but it does help with ratings.

No need to put journalist in quote marks. Watergate never happens if the source had not been granted anonymity.

The way it is supposed to work is you get a source saying something and you confirm it...TWICE...before going with it. Today, that doesn't always happen, but that's the way it is supposed to work.

Regardless if the item is confirmed twice or not, the use of unnamed sources does not in and of itself taint the source. Naturally you'd rather have a source attach a name to the quote, but if journalists were bound to that, nothing would ever be reported.

[Raptor]

I understand

No need to put journalist in quote marks. Watergate never happens if the source had not been granted anonymity.

The way it is supposed to work is you get a source saying something and you confirm it...TWICE...before going with it. Today, that doesn't always happen, but that's the way it is supposed to work.

Regardless if the item is confirmed twice or not, the use of unnamed sources does not in and of itself taint the source. Naturally you'd rather have a source attach a name to the quote, but if journalists were bound to that, nothing would ever be reported.

but its that abuse of that reporting tool that has undermined the validity of so many. It's irresponsible and for those out there who go that route I apply "journalist", they know who they are.