From The New Yorker [0]:

"The story was sourced to “two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.” However, once it was published, other federal officials spoke up. Mueller’s office released a rare public statement, saying that “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.” BuzzFeed, and its editor, Ben Smith, have stood by the story."

[...]

"I recently spoke by phone with Leopold about his reporting of this story and his other work on the Trump-Russia affair. Leopold, who was previously at Vice News, is considered an expert at using Freedom of Information Act requests and was part of a team of BuzzFeed reporters who were Pulitzer Prize finalists in 2018. He has also been the subject of controversy. In 2002, Salon removed an article from its Web site after Leopold was accused of inaccuracy and plagiarism. Four years later, he incorrectly reported that Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, had been indicted in the investigation into the outing of the C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame. (Leopold was open about past substance abuse and mental health issues in a 2006 memoir, “News Junkie.”)"

I still respect the outlet's FIFA story, but BuzzFeed News remained a step below mainstream outlets with investigations like The Washington Post.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-buzzfeed-reporter-e...

That strategy has been tainted for a while. Lots of seemingly legitimate comments from nobodies on social media like Reddit are actually from old accounts bought by companies, especially for product reviews (this is an explicit strategy by certain marketers). Even many enthusiastic product recommendations from YouTubers are influenced by sponsorships (oftentimes, even if they disclose that they were paid to make the sponsorship, they then say that they "genuinely" support the product even if it turns out to be defective).

The best way to evaluate a review is more based on examining the content of the review (instead of skipping to the conclusion), rather than who the person is. A person's small blog with in-depth reviews is often very reliable. YouTubers with in-depth reviews (rather than quick product recommendations) are also reliable. Certain review sites are also likely reliable (Wirecutter is okay, though sometimes their recommendations are biased towards ease-of-use rather than getting the best result from a product), but it's best to look at what the reviews actually say (as I agree that other popular review sites are influenced by undisclosed sponsorships).

In general, you're right about the principle of keeping sources anonymous to avoid harm. One principle in journalism ethics [2] is to "identify sources clearly" so the public can better understand a source's motives. But the other is to minimize harm ("Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort.") to both the sources and the public, motivating anonymity in certain cases.

However, in this instance, Weiner didn't name the informant in the article.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/21/world/cia-re-examines-hir...

[2] This is just one ethical code, but many ethical codes are essentially very similar: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/21/world/cia-re-examines-hir...

In the military, one of the values is supposed to be integrity. The value of integrity isn't just idealistic: it's pragmatically important to military strategy to avoid committing war crimes, as it lessens public support for the military action among the citizenry. The public can then vote out the administration, where a future one can scale back the war effort. As evidence this is a value, the Navy SEALs in particular says [0]: "Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond."

On the health risk to recruits, from the NYTimes article : "It is hard to say what role performance-enhancing drugs played in one death when there are so many other complicating factors, said Dr. Matthew Fedoruk, the chief science officer of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Even so, he said, the chemicals some sailors are relying on can interfere with the function of the heart, liver and other critical organs that are already under incredible stress from the brutal training.

"If enough people in a community are doping, he said, it spreads risk even to those who are clean, as the level of competition rises and more people are pushed to exhaustion and injury.

"“It makes it that much harder for the people doing the right thing to shine,” he said."

The military can either allow performance-enhancing drugs for all and provide adequate medical monitoring to avoid unnecessary deaths, or enforce the rules as written and test for it. Unnecessary deaths are in no one's interests within the country.

[0] https://www.nsw.navy.mil/NSW/SEAL-Ethos/

> "Sobering read. I really hope steroid use at BUDS isn't as big as this article purports it to be"

>> "It’s pretty accurate, the instructors even make jokes about it “Your roid rage is showing sir”"

>> "How could it not be, anabolics increase performance far outside the natural range and/or let you maintain what you could achieve naturally with far less effort. The effects can last well beyond when you stop taking them. You could take them from 18-21, keep training and join at 22 without testing positive but retaining a large (physical) advantage"

It's also very plausible from the NYTimes's article alone, from the report that the instructors had stopped testing for steroids, so there was no enforcement mechanism to stop the behavior.

From the NYTimes article: "Many men were coughing up bloody fluid from a condition called swimming-induced pulmonary edema — a potentially life-threatening ailment that is so common among men training in the frigid water at BUD/S that SEALs refer to it casually by the acronym SIPE.

"[...] Seaman Mullen showed up for his second attempt at BUD/S in January with fresh determination and a used car. But by the end of the second week, he was spitting up bloody fluid and struggling to breathe.

"“I said, go to the hospital right away,” his mother recalled. “He said, ‘No, ma, if you want to go to the hospital, they will make you quit first. Besides, it’s just SIPE.’”

"Ms. Mullen said her son, on the advice of other SEAL candidates, started secretly taking the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra, which was against Navy rules but used by SEALs as a potential treatment for SIPE. He recovered enough to keep training.""