Suppose you see a well-known psychic give a reading on TV for a sitter. Suppose the psychic gets some really astounding hits that are more than good guesses. As a skeptic, you feel there has to be a trick involved somehow. Suppose you then go online and look the sitter up on a something like Lexis-Nexis and find some news articles about the sitter that contain some of the "hits" given in the reading.
One could make the inference that the psychic also read these articles on Lexis-Nexis, or some other source, and used these to give a "hot reading." This is a classic Woodward and Bernstein "factoid."
It is a reasonable inference, and a better sounding inference than the one that says the psychic really is psychic.
But if you then claimed an anonymous source told you they actually saw the psychic using Lexis-Nexis to get facts on sitters, and this is not really true, then you have crossed a line.
One could make the inference that the psychic also read these articles on Lexis-Nexis, or some other source, and used these to give a "hot reading." This is a classic Woodward and Bernstein "factoid."
It is a reasonable inference, and a better sounding inference than the one that says the psychic really is psychic.
But if you then claimed an anonymous source told you they actually saw the psychic using Lexis-Nexis to get facts on sitters, and this is not really true, then you have crossed a line.