that if you haven't built the reputation as a journalist, or the backing of journalistic source (newspaper, magazine, etc.) then you have to provide something else to lend credence to your "facts."

When someone on this post says they're so and so's brother or uncle, I'm more inclined to believe them (they could be lying, but I'll take that over a no relationship rumor). If someone says, "I talked with Jackson Emery after the game," again, at least they're providing some ethos to their argument.

To provide an argument without logos, or basic logic to it, and then ascribe it to an unnamed source, and having the author be so unknown that they could be a 7 year old Kalahari bushman at an internet kiosk, gives me no reason to consider it a reliable piece of info.

If the person shared it as their opinion, I'd accept that. I might not agree, but I'd accept it.