They huddle in groups and throw spears at the ‘enemy’.
So, human beings behaved in the Bronze Age. And in some sectors nothing much seems to have changed,
This pattern of behaviour is in strong evidence amongst Guardian ‘journalists’ these days. They are giving full coverage to lurid tales about Trump based on, by their own admission, paid for second hand ‘information’ provided by email. 
It is no surprise to learn that this operation was conducted (for money presumably; it was done as a business commission) by an ex-MI6 agent. Using informers and defectors as a source to build your chosen narrative is a key part of their work. The illegal and disastrous war in Iraq was based in part in false testimony provided to British intelligence by Iraqi defectors.  It strains belief to believe that these people (MI6 agents / Guardian journalists) do not consider that their sources may be telling them what they want to hear and not the truth. The point is probably that they put entirely to one side the question as to whether what they are being told is true. What matters is that it suits the story they want to tell. (Iraq must be bombed. Putin is evil. Trump is etc. Both Putin and Trump are evil and are in it together. And so on). The informers and defectors play their part. Job done.
All of these considerations are obvious and should be on an entry-level journalism course. That the Guardian is promoting this material without in any way being able to corroborate it tells us that at the Guardian they are not practising journalism.
Indeed as one reads the Guardian these days with its incessant stream of anti-Russian and anti-Trump propaganda one realises that this is a kind of primitive group behaviour. They find security from huddling in their group and throwing spears (one-sided propaganda articles) at the ‘enemy’ outside. It seems that some people need the feeling of security they get from being in a group which is collectively against an ‘enemy’. So much so that they will even invent enemies… Strange to see Bronze age behaviour matched with 21st century technology and (in some cases at least) a certain degree of intelligence. But there you go.
If my gentle readers have any doubt that the Guardian is struggling with basic concepts of journalism (or indeed how to distinguish reality from non-reality) consider this (from another article on the Trump ‘dossier’):
But it is unlikely to be discarded as quickly or as conclusively as Trump would like. The flip side of information that cannot be classed reliable is that neither can it be classed unreliable.
What this appears to mean is that any innuendo from any source whatsoever – so long as it is completely unverifiable can become the stuff of political and ‘democratic’ discourse. This principle is the exact opposite of good journalism – that only information which can be verified and checked should be used.