It's a decent rule tpir04, but there are always exceptions: there are still good, small, specialized news sources that few people have heard of, and even big "established" news sources are prone to fouling up and having to pull a story or issue a major correction.
jaywilliams, the bigger thing at play here is learning the difference between independent sources versus dependent sources in a story. If two people were at the scene of a car crash and witnessed it first hand, both people would be independent sources. If somebody wasn't at the scene but heard about it from somebody who was, they would be a
dependent source, because they would
depend on the first person for their information.
There is nothing wrong with posting "dependent" sources, as long as the independent sources they cite are credible. But dependent sources are only as good as the info they cite. That's why reputable outlets won't vouch for a story until there's two independent sources.
Notice in the Screen Rant and TV Insider articles, all they say is that "Radar Online says..." First, Radar Online is owned by the same group that publishes things like National Enquirer. Red flag #1. Second, Radar Online's source is, again, some guy's podcast that seems to rely on twitter rumors with titles like "Catlyn Jenner Obsessed With Kate Middleton" and "Bradley Cooper Move On From Lady Gaga", and who keeps citing Alex Trebek's boss as some faceless "network", seemingly oblivious to who owns and airs Jeopardy. So I'm not holding my breath on this one.
Screen Rant and TV Insider didn't do any of the reporting themselves. They either couldn't verify the story with who works at the show, or they didn't try. (Alex has said nothing yet about wanting to voluntarily step down, so of course they couldn't verify it--why would anybody who works at the show go on the record and confirm they're going behind Alex' back to replace him against his wishes? That would be gross.)
Jeopardy! Reportedly Searching For Alex Trebek's Replacement
If they have to use weasel words in the headline like "reportedly", "allegedly", "supposedly", "claimed", you should be worried, cause it means they're not confident enough in the story to run it independently. Start checking the sources, cause there's a chance that somebody somewhere just made it up.
And don't worry about being the "first" to break news. News is manipulative and cutthroat and dependent on getting clicks to survive. Too many people are focused on being "first" and not "most accurate". When there's a sketchy story it's almost never a bad idea to wait for more verifiable information to come out. If a story makes you feel strong emotion—happiness, anger, pride, vindication—and that emotion pushes you to share a "fact" with others, STOP. That's when fact checking is MOST important.
Tldr: If you're overjoyed to learn about ABC's new hybrid show "The Press Your Luck/American Idol Hour", check with somebody reputable and make sure it actually exists before breathlessly sharing it with everybody else.