This is the thing, though, isn't it? What we regard as "evidence" when journos are involved doesn't seem to have any kind of logical basis.
That obviously depends on the journalist doesn't it?
Romano and Percy are seemingly rock solid.
Keen and Spiers don't lie to us, but they may be inaccurate from time to time.
The Sun, Talksport and HITC are right about once in a 100 times.
That is a logical basis.