(2) You might be correct that Ars quoting Senators might be a “source”? I think it’s just more muddying, and, in the spirit of my complaint, certainly doesn’t count as original journalism.
I stand by my point that this Ars article is at best overly lightly under researched, and at worst a bit bollocks.
The publication of that article and letter are events that have happened, which this journalist is reporting on. Without such reporting, most people would not be aware of these events.
What additional research do you think would be appropriate? Do you think journalists should decline to report on events that are happening if they haven't done deep enough background research?