Hacker News Reader

FWIW anonymous but somehow legitimate sources are often official spokespeople.

The reason they won't let reporters attribute statements to them is because while what they are saying is true it's not the official stance of the organization and/or the guidance documents they work off havn't been updated to include those statements.

View on HN

But what's their reason for not presenting evidence?

That's very typical. The way it works is the reporter queries the organization with whatever info they want and the organization responds with a statement.

"evidence" is beyond the scope of the interaction unless there is some reason to question the integrity of the spokesperson.

As long as you're not saying "typical" means justified.

What's unjustified about the statement they issued?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com