> What would even count as a “credible source”?
They are indeed hard to find in war, if that's what you mean, but there are good sources - intercepted communications, for example; anonymous interviews with current Russian soldiers; interviews with people they talk to; etc etc
> It’s a cellphone video from someone in the warzone, it’s raw footage from the source.
Raw footage is less credible. It lacks the fact-checking around it. The NY Times, for example, has put dozens of reporters in Ukraine to corroborate, fact-check, etc. - that's the value of actual journalists compared to some video on the Internet.
> they’re all saying the same shit.
I have seen that but it could be that Ukrainian messaging is consistent, and spreading messages that enemy morale is low is a very common, basic tactic. However, there seems to be other evidence of low morale.
However true it is, I'm glad Ukraine is doing it effectively!