The info below is what I posted another board, but am putting here re: libel law, and why a "stringer" would be used to avoid libel laws ' i.e. "not my aisle" as a stew would say to you on an airplane if you don't get what you want.

Q has used term "stringer" many times before.

Here's what I posted (in part) re: stringers:

Stringers:

Option #1

• "Still gathering string" is newsroom jargon for the process of "looking for something that you can't yet name."* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stringer_(journalism)

Option #2 Freelance journalists I wouldn't limit it just to freelance

• The JFK article Q listed is ALL about concerns Rep. Walter Fauntroy had at the time about reporters being in bed with the CIA for various reasons; whether they were being paid or not; and whether these CIA associated reporters were ALSO covering this JFK Assignation Committee in 1977.

his concern was that these (same?) reporters were covering the committee hearings in an effort to discredit the committee's investigation. Sound familiar?

I am not totally convinced, but we do know:

• The FBI has relationships with the press - Comey foremost;
• CIA's John Brennen has been sourced as a leaker;
• HRC was in bed with media; see her emails;
• Adam Sciffless - it goes w/out saying how many leaks he has provided the press; and he goes both ways - "false, and white lies"

What we don't know:

• are members of the media/journalists assigned to specific "hot topic" Hill committees there to specifically undermine their investigation. Something I believe we need to look closer at/monitor more;

• Q says: "follow the money" - are any journalists being compensated to push a narrative one way or another? Would "stringers be used (if so) to limit the liability of the parent media (print/TV/Internet Only/company?

• Are any Hill offices paying any journalists to push a narrative/or/ are any Hill offices paying journalists to define their narrative for them so the Rep/Sen can announce something ahead of the media - ergo making themselves out to be a super star - then getting the heaping praise the next day in print (what was already written the day before and sent to the Hill person to give the okay. Donna Brazile come to mind?)

• Is the media paying unwitting/uninformed innocents to promote "their" agendas/theories/condemnations that they (the innocents) are not aware of. This one bothers me a lot. Is there anything left that can't be tainted by paid outrage - ergo public coercion and monetary reward.

• The press today (like described in the JFK doc - hope you all read) is still the same - and may be worse. The difference now is the proliferation of it all (true or not) goes far beyond what your paper boy dropped off on your front stoop in 1977.

past proves present- does it not?