More flakiness in Chinese journalism

I was watching the news on CCTV9 - the "international" channel of the state television company here - over the weekend, depressed to hear more threatening rhetoric in response to a proposed visit to Taiwan by the Dalai Lama.   The report quoted someone - a Taiwanese quisling from the Kuomintang political party, I believe - decrying the visit as "politically motivated" and "likely to destroy cross-Strait relations".  The item then concluded by saying (I kid you not), "And Al-Jazeera reported similar comments."   Now, Chinese journalists are notoriously bad - even worse than Chinese academics! - at distinguishing secondary from primary sources; but even so, this was quite a staggering lapse.  Indeed, even the intention behind the phrase is somewhat baffling.  Is this supposed to be implying that the celebrated Arab news agency is adopting an editorial stance that joins in condemnation of the DL's possible visit?  They didn't seem to be saying quite that.  Or is the fact that Al-Jazeera is reporting such condemnations seen to grant them an imprimatur of greater credibility and significance?  (And is it only laowai cynics such as myself who wonder if, by contrast, other news sources of even greater fame and influence - such as, oh, I don't know, the BBC perhaps - considered this story undeserving of comment?)   My parsing of this comment was this: "And this isn't just one self-serving, rent-a-quote politician saying this.  Oh no.  Lots of people are saying it.  But we're too lazy to tell you who."     I assume that the native English speakers on the editorial staff at CCTV9 don't work at weekends.  Either that, or they're not trusted to work on stories about any of "the three T's".  Or perhaps they're just so beaten down by the relentlessly dismal quality of the material they have to work with that they've given up trying.