Poor, Edmund W wrote:
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio
station, then write an
article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[
and ]] brackets, like this:
* According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of elderberries.
I agree, but I would also note that you don't have to mention what
everyone says on everything. However, the main criterion should not be
objectivity (it's not our job to be media critic) but relevance. If
it's a pirate radio station with a shady reputation but a large audience
and large name-recognition, then what they say should be noted and
attributed to them (and people can decide if they're just nuts). If
it's some random guy nobody knows about, we of course don't have to say
"but this guy said [blah blah]".
In this case from what I can tell it's somewhat borderline. It's a
station with a small but hardcore following, but it seems well known in
the general public because of the controversy surrounding it. So I'd
lean towards reporting what they say (where reasonably relevant, as
given the media coverage I think this case is) and just attributing it
to them. If other people have questioned the veracity of the report, we
can say that too.