Story I came across today #4

This is the first paragraph from this article:

"PHILADELPHIA - A home-schooled teenager who felt bullied amassed a cache of guns, knives and hand grenades and tried to recruit another boy for a possible school attack, authorities said Thursday."

I guess he was planning a Columbine style attack on his own home? I think the internet age has brought us instant publishing, which is nice, but killed the editor in the process.

This reminds me of another thing that bothers me about news articles nowadays. That damn line (in one form or another) that is always added after certain quotes by people that choose to remain anonymous that goes something like, "says anonymous who cannot reveal his name because he is not at liberty to discuss the situation". Is it me, or has that line in its various forms gotten longer and longer over the last few years? What happened to just, "Unidentified sources", or something else short and generic. Why and how did it morph into some gigantic explanation of why they are anonymous? Why the hell are they (the reporters) discussing the situation with those people in the first place if they are not at liberty to discuss it? Shouldn't the fact that they are discussing it anyway be a story unto itself? Come on reporters, just rat them out!