This technique works in the following way: if the primary origin of an inconvenient information is something solid, like an unassailable logic deduction, a verifiable empyrical evidence, or a very credible source (i.e.: an official institution, a scientific paper, etc.), mediatic attention is promptly switched away from the origin, and focused towards its second-hand (and less credible) reporters instead; in every other case, the opposite is done.
When, for example, some random person without credentials posts on a forum/social media/personal blog a peer-reviewed paper made by scientists, if that paper promotes the mainstream narrative or the elites' agenda, then the paper is referenced directly as the original source, and the information is therefore automatically treated as "science"; on the contrary, if the result of that paper is inconvenient for them, then the forum/social media/personal blog who is just reporting on it is treated as the "source", and the actual original source is ignored entirely, in order to give the impression it's just the invention of some random person without credential.
The repeated use of this tactic can effectively hide a huge portion of science from public consideration, creating the illusion of an inexistent "scientific consensus" strictly leaned towards a specific position, and cataloguing every dissenting position as nothing more than wild guesses or baseless rumors.
A newspaper reports on a scientist saying that vaccines are safe (Actual source: scientist; Reporter: newspaper)
How it's treated: "Science says that vaccines are safe" / "Trust science!" (Focus on scientist instead of newspaper)
Facebook users post the result of a scientific paper showing that certain vaccines are harmful (Actual source: scientific paper; Reporter: Facebook user)
How it's treated: "Vaccine skepticism on the rise on Facebook" / "Stop trusting what you hear on Facebook!" (Focus on Facebook instead of scientific paper)