Many journalists limit themselves to using only on-the-record sources in their stories. Even then, the rule of thumb is to get TWO on the record sources. The usual "anonymous source" cited by reporters is almost always better described as "a source who requested not being named". That means they know who the person is, but they aren't telling you, the reader.
You most famous anonymous source of the last 100 years is probably Deep Throat. He was unknown to us, but Woodward and Bernstein and Ben Bradley all knew who he was. Eventually, when he was an old man and his lawyer let the information out, they did tell us who he was. 
Deep Throat: FBI Associate Director Mark Felt
So, even before you get to the owners of the media wanting to spike the story (and that happens too) you have the problem of a single source, who is also an unknown individual or group, posting in coded language, on a website famous for (among other things) pranks.
Imagine taking the story into your editor and trying to sell it.
That doesn't mean Q isn't real or legit, it means that he / they have positioned themselves in such a way that it is very difficult for the media to cover them.
If Q is what everyone says, then we have to assume this was deliberate. Q doesn't want reporters writing stories about him, he want's anons decoding his messages, he wants them to spread to secondary web sites, like Free Republic and Twitter and Gag and You Tube. And still the MSM can't really write about it except as "crazy conspiracy theory" because using their rules it has no basis in fact.
It comes down to the risk of credibility.
As an example Tucker Carlson reported the Mueller is giving Tony Podesta immunity, in the same time frame we knew that Mueller had asked for immunity for 5 witnesses in the Virginia case against him for tax evasion.
When the 5 names were revealed a few days after Tucker's reporting Podesta's name was not among them.
Tucker was subject to a huge amount of pummeling by other media for mis-reporting a story.
Tucker, in this case, may turn out to be right, because he is now claiming that the immunity was sought and granted in the Federal case in DC, not the case in Virginia.
Tucker Carlson's 'Scoop' About Tony Podesta's Immunity Was A Lie
Now, granted "Crooks and Liars" is not the ultimate authority on stuff, but this same line was all over the MSM.
If you are a reporter trying to make a living as a reporter the MSM is not your enemy, it's is your employer and all your future employers. A reporter only has their reputation to get them a job, if they destroy it reporting rumors from an unknown source posting on a cartoon related website -- they are not going to be very employable.
Even guys like Rush don't want to get caught up in something that doesn't pan out and have his accuracy impugned on account of it. There is no upside to reporting on it, and lots of downsides.
That's one reason I think keeping track of what HAS crossed over to the MSM is important.
So does Q. A month or so ago he posted a long post that was all links about "the Q phenomena" from various more-or-less mainstream sources.
Like I've said Q has to cross over the the MSM, or the phenomena that Q writes about have to become factually indisputable events.
The indictment of James A. Wolfe is such an immutable fact. So is the indictment of Clare Bronfman for money-laundering NIXVM cult money. We have to hope that there is more and more of those sorts of indictments coming down. Even they the MSM might not be reporting on Q, but they will sure be reading hm and reporting on the fruits from his tree.
