points by laimewhisps 6 hours ago | 0 comments
That's not a source. The source would be whoever the New York Times talked to, which they actually don't cite:
> This account is based on interviews with people briefed on the surveillance, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings are drawn from classified intelligence, as well as other officials and industry executives and analysts.
It very literally is. A biography on Thomas Jefferson will list sources. It would be beyond nonsense to suggest the book has no sources because it didn't talk to a dead man.
> The source would be whoever the New York Times talked to
That would be their source. Someone complaining about the Post should know the difference.