Especially, because the original article states „Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.“ while the linked article here implies that this option is considered.
Did you even read the article you linked? The fuckin “source” you got your panties in a bunch over arent even cited beyond, “according to people familiar with the deliberations.” They dont even say its their own source in their own article you dolt.
In journalism, this is common lingo for “our journalists personally communicated with sources (more that one) that wish to remain anonymous.” It’s the guardian’s legwork and integrity for shielding anon sources here, not them copying it from some other site (which they’d link if they did).
Sorry the be pedantic, but why not link the original source?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say
Since it’s their inside sources.
Especially, because the original article states „Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.“ while the linked article here implies that this option is considered.
Exactly. Hence the importance of linking the original source…
Did you even read the article you linked? The fuckin “source” you got your panties in a bunch over arent even cited beyond, “according to people familiar with the deliberations.” They dont even say its their own source in their own article you dolt.
To expand on Shrubbery, you can read the Guardian’s editorial standards and the base ones they follow: https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/08/EditorialGuidelinesAug2011.pdf
In journalism, this is common lingo for “our journalists personally communicated with sources (more that one) that wish to remain anonymous.” It’s the guardian’s legwork and integrity for shielding anon sources here, not them copying it from some other site (which they’d link if they did).
Afaik that is synonymous/how journalist say “inside source”.