It is absolutely NOT assumed that anonymous sources are used when they are not mentioned.Explain to me how under any circumstances Peter King could have been making a statement of fact that the NFL saw this video, short of having been in the room while they watched it.King did wrong here. Big time.Possibility (3) There was a misunderstanding between King and his source (and of course he had a source, what did you think King was in the room when the NFL allegedly watched the video?). Or the source was lying. Or the source misunderstood what he was told. Or the source wanted to sound like a big shot. This is why anonymous sources are the lowest form of credibility in journalism. It could certainly be true, but there are many scenarios where it was a mistake.Conclusions:
(1) Peter King violated some core reporter principles
(2) The NFL is ether lying or looks recklessly stupid
I've never heard someone make no distinction among (1) an anonymous source, (2) a cited source and a (3) statement of fact...but you just did.
He stated it as fact in the article and now, months later, says it was an anonymous source!
So for the record I disagree with you:
There is absolutely a bright, shiny distinction among them and there's a chance that Peter King pays for this professionally as a result.
And of course it was an anonymous source. Know how I know? BECAUSE HE OR SHE IS ANONYMOUS. Thats what it means when you dont cite them.
Im not going to teach a journalism class here. Do a search....