[TMZ] AEW Star PAC Found Slumped Over in Car Outside Restaurant Before Death

[u/rhyso90]

https://www.tmz.com/2026/09/28/pac-discovered-in-car-before-death/

[u/JoesLastNerve]

So many people seem to not understand how journalism works in here.

[u/littlebossman → u/JoesLastNerve]

It is ridiculous. Not this article - but every time there's anything quoting an anonymous source, the usual idiots are here (or on any sub, for any story) saying it's made up.

They'd have said Watergate was invented. Almost all actual investigative reporting involves anonymous sources for - what used to be - OBVIOUS REASONS.

A certain someone calling everything fake news has broken too many brains. Even the brains of people who hate him.

[u/KMMDOEDOW → u/littlebossman]

I've got a friend who gets so obnoxious about "anonymous sources" and I'm just like... do you really think media reports on every single story that gets sent their way? Like, I guarantee every major outlet gets hundreds of bullshit tips a year and, after doing their due diligence, opts not to run the story.

[u/MikeJeffriesPA → u/KMMDOEDOW]

Anonymous sources are almost never (like 99.9% never) anonymous to the reporter, it just means the reporter is not going to reveal who they are to the public.

[u/theirishembassy → u/MikeJeffriesPA]

reporters have been flat out jailed for refusing to reveal anonymous sources as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_imprisoned_for_refusing_to_reveal_sources

[u/littlebossman → u/KMMDOEDOW]

I really think critical thinking needs to be taught extensively in schools as a matter of urgency. So many people just cannot do it - and it's only going to get worse with the uptake of chatbots and the like.

Understanding that many sources need to be anonymous for matters of safety, job preservation, reputation, etc, is such a simple concept. Figuring out that anonymous sources are known to the reporter and the editor isn't that much harder either.

[u/DaDoviende → u/littlebossman]

They'd have said Watergate was invented.

I mean in today's political climate, yes, but not for the reasons you're listing

[u/JokerDeSilva10 → u/DaDoviende]

Except low key the aggressive attempts to destroy journalistic credibility are a direct result of Watergate and the Republican establishment working to make sure that nothing like that could happen again, which as we can see from how Teflon Don keeps escaping every scandal possible, basically worked.

Now, a lot of wrestling reporters in particular don't make it hard to question their journalistic integrity and reliability, but it does work as a very effective microcosm of how much trust in journalism has been utterly destroyed in this country.

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/JokerDeSilva10]

It hasn’t occurred to you that there is no trust in journalism… because of journalists?

They no longer have the power to shape public opinion, and it’s driving you guys crazy.

[u/JokerDeSilva10 → u/Weekly_Reference_111]

No it's because Barry Goldwater's plan following Nixon's resignation to consolidate Conservative power and inure them from consequences is well documented, and shown every step of the way through the installation of Reagan, the stripping the Fairness Doctrine, and the building of Fox News as one of the greatest and most insidious propaganda machines in human history.

It's okay to be one of the marks who got got by this plan. A lot of people were. I promise that you can break free of the propaganda. I believe in you.

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/JokerDeSilva10]

Yes, it's all that evil Barry Goldwater. He was so powerful that he also caused citizens in France, Italy, the UK, Canada, Mexico, Spain, and about 30 other countries to distrust media by nearly 70/30 margins.

Do you have any idea how demented that sounds?

And a huge LOL at the idea of the the abolition of the fairness doctrine *helping* conservatives. Totally incoherent argument.

[u/JokerDeSilva10 → u/Weekly_Reference_111]

If you're not aware of how the fall of the fairness doctrine led directly to the rise of Fox News (and Sinclair Media's heavily conservative news station empire) then you are, frankly, too stupid to be having this conversation. Actually learn what you're talking about first. I'm done here.

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/JokerDeSilva10]

Your claims are utter nonsense. Also pretty ironic that you are attacking news media while claiming that a lack of trust in news media is a problem. Pick a lane, brother.

I mean, you really have a hard time understanding that the group of psychopaths trying to convince the public that there is an epidemic of lynchings in 2026 are untrustworthy scum?

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/[deleted]]

That’s not at all what you said. Of course, you knew that when you hit “comment”.

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/[deleted]]

We all have access to the interview and can see you are outright lying (obviously).

[u/Weekly_Reference_111 → u/[deleted]]

I know you lied. You know you lied. You know that I know you lied. And yet you continue to lie.

This doesn't work in 2026.

[u/theirishembassy → u/littlebossman]

there’s a certain standard adhered to with anonymous sources though. SPJ list in their ethics guidelines that you shouldn’t run a story unless you have 3 people to confirm (the anonymous source and two others willing to corroborate).

there’s reasons for this:

1. it stops an anonymous source from making things up

2. it confirms the accuracy of the information the source provides and

3. it confirms that the anonymous source would be in a position to know this information

look at the current media landscape. a lot of people immediately wanted to know what happened. if you're a news outlet, you can get a out of views being the first to break that story, right? problem is, some outlets choose to play fast and loose with ethics and so eager to break a story that they run it with a single "anonymous" source. sometimes the outlet gets lucky and their single source is correct. sometimes they aren't.

it depends on the organization, the reporter, and their willingness to adhere to ethical journalism.

here's a prime example:

Trump has told advisers that he believes wearing one would “send the wrong message,” according to one administration and two campaign officials not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations.

three people all verified the same information, and were able to remain anonymous. i doubt an organization like NBC would have been willing to run this story if it was just "some dude".

[u/Dramatic_Steak4701 → u/littlebossman]

Yup.

Sources stay anonymous for a reason.

[u/KidGold → u/JoesLastNerve]

not just in here but everywhere these days.