“Specific requirement,” as in a directive. But you already knew that.
As for the “conspiracy” reference, read some of the comments by some of the more wild-eyed, over-caffeinated among us in this thread.
Well, no. I didn't want to put words in your mouth. A rule, then, published or somehow shared. No.
No, you cannot lower the bar like that. There are things that everyone knows are unacceptable...for example, one doesn't take a leak in the break room sink. No one needs to have that explained...and anyone who does, is unqualified to work anywhere but a barnyard.
The media package and sell information. The value of that information depends upon the credibility of the organization.
How much was the credibility of NBC News crippled by faux exploding gas tanks? How much was CBS News hurt by "fake but accurate" TANG documents?
FOX News took a hit when it was disclosed that George Will's wife worked for Scott Walker. Had it been disclosed in advance, people would have factored that into his opinions. Add Murdoch's promotion of open borders and Sammon's daughter working for Rubio's campaign, moderators bragging about bringing down candidates, with a lineup of lefty candidates...and it's one undisclosed conflict after another.
Lying by omission leaves us to wonder(aside from the bias) what else aren't we being told?
Of course it's a big deal. Sammons was trying to protect his daughter from blowback. He's a flippin' VP of FOX News...he doesn't have to have it explained. If anything, one would expect he would be doing the explaining.