Getting two sources is the standard in journalism; that is what journalists are taught in university. The fact they are anonymous sources is also considered okay by most, if not all, journalists.
I'm not saying this is good. Rather, I'm saying that this is normal: it's rumors masquerading as revelation. Reality is far too boring (and occassionally too horrifying) to be news-worthy.
"...six Chinese companies Washington says are closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party"
There is no Chinese "company" that is *not* closely linked to the CCP.
There is no legal basis for any individual or "company" in China to defy the CCP. Don't take my word for it --- ask Jack Ma --- if you can find him.
Any assumption to the contrary is merely a senseless projection of western norms onto a society where they carry no weight.
The only listed source for this information is "two people who declined to be named." All the rest is speculation.
This is either crappy journalism, or a planted story, or AI, or maybe all three.
Getting two sources is the standard in journalism; that is what journalists are taught in university. The fact they are anonymous sources is also considered okay by most, if not all, journalists.
I'm not saying this is good. Rather, I'm saying that this is normal: it's rumors masquerading as revelation. Reality is far too boring (and occassionally too horrifying) to be news-worthy.