I've responded to this with my other comment, but since you actually bring up this point twice, you apparently really do think there is some significance to this. Do you disbelieve all reporters because they are only reporting on a story rather than being the actors involved? Or are you trying to make some plagiarism argument? I really don't understand your point.

A copy of information does not make it less reliable. Period. If you want to argue this point, I'd love to hear how you go about it, because your new theory on information reliability would break the internet as we know it.

Now, if a source is known to promote suspicious information, that will make it unreliable, to anyone who believes the previously reported information is suspicious. Is this clear enough a distinction between my attack on his source and your attack on mine, or do I need to go over this point further?