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).
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”.