Not to be flippant, but why can’t you do that?
I feel like journalism, as an occupation, has had a hard time communicating why it exists over the last 20 years or so while trying to keep up with all the changes.
edit: A free primer on standards, re: confirmation.
One source can, with caution, be the basis of an article, as long as it's presented as unconfirmed. This can induce other sources to reach out to their media contacts, so it's useful.
Two sources is considered confirmed as long as they're independent. Journalists have gotten in trouble with double confirmation when it came out one cited the other.
Three independent sources is considered golden.
There's variation here if the source is the source, with actual authority on the subject, but other sources can add context they might not be willing or able to talk about.
edit: I don't know why this is so vexing to sections of the YCombinatorati.
bonus edit after a reply since I'm rate limited for a while: IME people here are happy to share articles when people ask if there's more info. Hackers, at least a broad subset who loosely identify with the principles, love to share knowledge. Some even to the point of exfiltrating it! It's almost a defining characteristic.
That's why this is so vexing!
I'm not doing battle here. We're not at war. I'm asking for a free exchange of knowledge among people trying to be civil toward each other.
I'm operating on the assumption that a passing journalist with a source and an interest is already doing their job and, like most journalists, tries to keep it all free and public in recognizing that's best for the good of the public even if it's hard to fund that way.