i don't see why they would be called that. but that's not the measure here, either, is it? the measure should be are they truthful and useful? so are they? well, if they wanted to be truthful and useful, where were they during the acrimony of acidic policies like the travel ban and the kids in cages? the real soul searching here, though, isn't from anonymous. it should be from the president. why does he think the white house leaks as much as it does? why does he think a top-notch journalism could fill 450 pages? why does he think the "times" was so motivated to write, publish something like this op-ped? the final question, what happens next? kelly is really the grand inquisitor, rooting out the resist resistor? as they call the writer? good luck. the place is a sieve. the list of possibilities is a dozen long for a reason. why not focus on why you keep hearing the same criticisms? focus on making it better. because here's what we know for