I don't know why people take this so seriously.
Who exactly is a "reputable source"?
If you have half a brain, you look at the report, examine the rest of the evidence and then arrive to an educated decision to believe it or not.
Do we really and honestly think that anyone has the real "scoop"?
Some are better than others, but when the competition for clicks and traffic is what it is right now, you have to understand the landscape.
There are but a few that I explicitly trust.
If Jay Glazer says it, that is a truth.
The rest you have to filter. Some more than others.
Rapoport, requires more filter. Schefter used to be more reliable but even he is feeling the pressure to be more relevant than anyone else.
But I guess that extra effort is too hard. If we had to wait for facts, there would be no speculation and things would be pretty boring.
It is not that serious. It is just fodder for discussion.