probably considered a pretty good source for that. I don't get the ethics comment at all. What is unethical about that article? It is breaking news. Check out any breaking news story. The only difference is Drew names his source in this case, which is better than 90 percent of breaking news.

Now you're laundry list of complaints:
1. Second source - it's in the article and "no comment." Pretty common response from the blindsided party in any breaking news.
2. How do you know he didn't fact check data? That's conjecture on your part. Unless you basing that on your independent knowledge (or the internet rumors you heard). Just because what he says in his article is different from the rumors you heard doesn't mean he's wrong.
3. A family member is inherently reliable, 99 percent of the time. He is a source pretty close to the situation.
4. Verifying information is the same thing as fact checking.

Yeah, it is really Journalism 101. At least that is what I learned in my journalism class. My communications ethics class certainly didn't paint this as unethical.

I'm not saying his article is a Pulitzer, or that he didn't sensationalize. He did. But the scoop of the story is Bernard is going to transfer because he feels wronged. IMO, not a hack job. And definitely not unethical.