Trust them? I don't think so

ABC News says we should trust their hysterical story about Iran enriching uranium just because they say so. But it turns out this story was authored by the same ABC reporters, Brian Ross and Chris Isham, who claimed in October 2001 that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the anthrax attacks. In fact, Ross was also one of the primary promoters of Cheney's much-beloved "Mohammed Atta and the Iraqi spy in Prague" myth.
Glenn Greenwald tracked it down. The senior VP of ABC News said the unsourced assertion that Iran is enriching uranium at a furious pace was a credible story because the reporters were "very reliable":

In response to my central point -- that a story of this magnitude and potential impact should not be passed on without at least some information enabling an assessment of the credibility of the sources (or, at the very least, should include an explanation as to why such information was being concealed) -- Schneider's response was that there is a way for the reader to assess the credibility of the story. Namely, because ABC News and the reporters in question have "proven over a long period of time" that they are "very reliable" ...

Yeah. Reliably wrong!