Holman Jenkins opened his op-ed with this paragraph.

In a different political universe Elon Musk’s DOGE wouldn’t be needed. A competent media would be flogging the public sector to provide taxpayers with effective, cost-efficient service. Programs would be examined for their usefulness. It wouldn’t qualify as wanton cruelty if one were determined to be obsolete, as happens in the private sector every day.

I’ll leave aside Jenkins’ journalistic self-importance in presuming members of the journalism guild to be the ones to define “effective” or “cost-efficient.” I’m interested here in his reference to determined to be obsolete, as happens in the private sector every day. Would that he would apply that to his guild, and answer a question I’ve long asked.

1. ID of “anonymous” sources
2. Explanation of why [journalism] has walked away from journalistic standard of corroborating “anonymous” sources with at least two on the record sources
3. Explanation of why we readers should believe “anonymous” sources actually exist
4. On the premise that at least some of the “anonymous” sources do exist, explanation of why we should believe what the source is claiming, given his fundamental dishonesty as demonstrated by his leak, which came at least in violation of his terms of employment if not his oath of office
5. On claims that the leaker is actually a whistle-blower, explanation of why proof was withheld from readers that he exhausted all of his whistle-blower channels before he leaked
6. Regarding 5 above, provision of that proof
7. Identification of the whistle blower, since he needs no anonymity; whistle-blower laws protect him

To which I add, most importantly, given Item 2 above, what publicly accessible, concretely measurable standard of journalistic integrity do today’s editors and news writers use?