You trusted it because it sounded official. 'Official' was the costume, not the credential.
Also known as Anonymous sourcing / source laundering
When a message says 'sources say' or 'people are saying' or 'reportedly,' it's obfuscating the source, attributing claims to unnamed people or diffuse groups, which lowers accountability. You can't evaluate the source because you can't see it.
Truth-adjacency
Truth-adjacent: the pattern's significance depends on whether the claim is true
Where it shows up
Public discourse
The phrases and tells that mark this pattern in the wild:
sources saypeople are sayingreportedlyit is believedsome claimmany are callingsources familiar with the matterThe source is a fog. “Sources say” doesn’t say who the sources are, how many there are, or whether they’re in a position to know. The claim floats free of any anchor you could evaluate.
You call out “source obfuscation” but the journalist documented their sourcing standards: two independent sources, editorial verification, and a stated reason for anonymity (source at risk of retaliation). That’s responsible journalism, not obfuscation. The pattern requires the anonymity to prevent evaluation, not to protect a source.
Field notes where this pattern was identified:
How this pattern gets misused
Someone calls any anonymous sourcing 'source obfuscation', including legitimate journalism that protects sources. The vocabulary becomes a tool for demanding that all sources be named, which would endanger whistleblowers and sources at risk.
What it looks like when you're wrong about it
Anonymous sourcing is not inherently obfuscation. It's obfuscation when the anonymity prevents evaluation of the claim's credibility, when 'sources say' replaces any basis for judging whether the sources are reliable. Journalism with documented anonymous sourcing standards (multiple independent sources, editorial verification) is not obfuscation.
Not sure? Describe the situation to someone outside it. If they do not see the pattern, pause before you name it.
Authority laundering
You stopped asking for the evidence because the phrase sounded settled. 'Experts agree' was the whole argument. The authority was borrowed, never shown.
Unity simulation
You heard 'everyone agrees' and stopped checking. The agreement was asserted, not shown. Your silence was counted as a yes.
The name is designed to spread. The hook is designed to stick. If you recognized something, share the name.