> the Times is not going to print a story based on anonymous submissions without any further vetting, or investigation. They're going to seek independent corroboration

Citation needed.

Here are some counterpoints to your assertion that they would not print a story not independently corroborated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/columbia-and-new-york-...

http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=4379 [duke lacrosse reporting]

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/wrong_wrong_wrong_w...

A great example of the Times and their “anonymous” sources (and lack of corroboration) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/maybe.htm...

Suggesting that the Times “isn’t going to print a story..without further vetting” is based on some idealistic view of the Times, but not necessarily on a reality based on their history. Didn’t they also just print an anonymous op-ed, providing zero opportunity to challenge or verify any of the claims contained therein?

The Times is a reputable as any other news outlet, but Reuter’s they are not. They are laced with a history of subtle bias and outright dishonesty when it suits them.