I’m probably going to regret this but here are a few things about lobby reporting/‘no 10 sources’ it might be useful to know (small thread follows, RIP my mentions)

1. repeating what source says in response to hostile story is not ‘being a mouthpiece’’, it’s reporting. It matters to repeat the alibi exactly; sometimes it *does* explain why a thing that looks bad actually isn’t (that field? It was for rescuing donkeys)...

...but sometimes it shows the excuse just raises more Qs than As).Didn’t they have a single friend in London to help? Is this really what a normal person would do? But you show, don’t tell. Let readers decide. Repeating the alibi exactly matters...

...because if it changes under pressure (weak alibis often do) you want to be able to show that. Now, sourcing. ‘No 10 refused to comment’ implies official Downing St spokesman; ‘Downing St source’ or ‘source close to Cummings’ (might be DC, might not) is...

...more nebulous, deniable & political. If No 10 officially says sthing that turns out to be untrue it is a huge deal; civil service integrity is breached. If a ‘source’ does, obv outrageous but lacks same quasi-constitutional implications. What it means...

...when No 10 won’t comment but sources will is usually either 1.personal matter, not worth govt machine getting into 2. official spks isn’t sure of facts yet & doesn’t want to make mistake 3. This is dodgy AF & won’t touch with barge pole. So it matters...

...what kind of source says it; the reporter is telling you something about how much to trust them. Final points; replying to another reporter’s tweet of the story with the denial *does* look weird & yes, I get this system looks madly opaque & tortured

Final nerd point; I think Twitter *structurally* is hell for balanced reporting. encourages telling story in dribs & drabs before all clear; advantages those who can get rebuttal out quicker; ppl cherrypick single tweets from series. It’s an issue for BBC.