Quite. If they are going to report this stuff journalists should (a) insist that it is reported as being Cummings and (b) make sure that the froth is topped and tailed by an explanation of the problems with it (using their own judgment and getting knowledgable comment).
“This was the position of Cummings/the PM’s official spokesman but every constitutional expert we talked to said it was rubbish” would be the right and responsible framing for @tnewtondunn’s piece.
Scepticism about messages being put out by those in power (especially those trying to evade proper accountability for those messages by hiding under a cloak of anonymity, however thin) is, one would have thought, basic journalism.
