Five pages on this site refer to a source. It is worth setting out plainly what such attributions carry, because the same wording covers a genuine confidence and a story placed on purpose.
The phrase that means very little
A source close to the couple, an insider, a friend of the family: none of these can be checked by a reader, and none commits the outlet to anything. They cover a spectrum that runs from a person who was in the room to a representative feeding a narrative before it breaks elsewhere. That does not make them worthless, but it does mean the claim rests entirely on the publication's judgement rather than on evidence you can weigh.
A no comment is not a denial
Publicists distinguish carefully between declining to comment, which leaves everything open, and a specific denial, which is worded tightly and is legally exposed. Reading the exact form of the response tells you more than the headline above it.
The loop that manufactures corroboration
One outlet publishes. A dozen others report that the first outlet has published, each citing it. Within hours the story appears everywhere and looks confirmed, although not one additional source has been added. Following the chain back to its origin is the most useful habit in this field, and it usually ends at a single unnamed person.
Check the date before anything else
A large share of viral items are old material resurfacing: a quote from an interview given years earlier, a photograph from a previous event, a statement made in a context nobody restates. The original date defuses most of them in seconds, and it is almost always available.
Corrections do not travel
When a story is withdrawn, the correction reaches a fraction of the audience that saw the claim. That asymmetry is structural rather than malicious, and it is the reason a small delay before sharing costs nothing and prevents a great deal. It applies as much to published interviews as to anonymous reports.
