This is a well appreciated issue, which is why news organisations try to develop a reputation for reliability.Also, given that the reports are anonymous, it's easy and consequence free for them to outright lie or even just paint an incomplete or biased picture. It's a very common practice for people to use anonymous leaks to try to exert influence for their own ends, and you should ALWAYS treat anonymous reports with skepticism. It's quite strange that this principle is being actively discarded here. Or maybe not so strange.
I guess that Deep Throat was only an anonymous source for years, so it was wrong to investigate the Watergate burglary.
You are missing the point. It is that he is getting THAT, highly edited information , which is basically, like the worst parody of 80s action movies, "goodies are killing baddies in spectacular explosions" which suggests that he is unable to deal with bad news. He could be getting daily 10 hour lectures* on the situation in Iran as well, but he's only likely to remember the highlight reel.the NBC article presents the evidence. All one need do is notice it. First off, there are no claims anywhere in the article that any of these officials know what intelligence Trump is getting. Second, NONE of the sources actually make a definitive claim that aides are hiding information from Trump, only that a fear exists that they might be. In other words, the sources do not know what information Trump is getting, and cannot directly evaluate whether it's complete or not. So even if those sources are right (and they only claim to be worried about the possibility), they still don't know what Trump is being briefed on. If they did, then they would know (not worry about) whether information was being kept from Trump, and they would know what that information was.
*Yeah, right.