alt Hacker News> journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.
Just count how many "according to anonymous sources" stories you heard recently, and how much of the "evidence" anyone would independently verify. You'd be surprised (or not, if you've been awake for the last decade).
I read those stories quite a bit. In serious journalism, they are corroborated with other evidence and usually turn out to be accurate. I saw a NY Times story based on interviews with ~80 people and confidential documents; these journalists aren't kidding around. The reputations and careers (and liability) of serious journalists rest on uncovering important stories and getting it right, not on the number of clicks.
Contrast that with social media.