I'm clearly refuting this – "because Modi complained" in the GPs post.
And your linked article is making an unsubstantiated claim based on "source with direct knowledge". That's just not credible enough.
That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism.
You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation?
> That’s not an unsubstantiated claim, that’s literally how you deal with sensitive contacts and information in journalism.
The way it works is if the writing has a byline of a credible investigative journalist. It doesn't work for an anonymous wire service article.
> You understand that nobody is going to speak on the record about this, right? What, exactly, do you expect in terms of substantiation?
Journalism used to have standards. If you didn't have multiple confirmations you wouldn't publish it. These days they publish anything. They have more better credibility than anonymous opinion posts on random internet forums.