I think that is the new standard for journalism. There was a time when using the term "Source" implied that the person in question might have reason to actually know something. Now they just grab whatever loosely affiliated partisan idiot who is willing to blather the office gossip at them. They need a new rule, that if a journalist publishes a story based off of an anonymous source dishing inaccurate rumors, every story they write in the future should have a warning label declaring their willingness to be a patzy. When a source gives their name, it is their integrity that is at stake. When a source is anonymous, it is the journalists integrity that is at stake.

I think that is the new standard for journalism. There was a time when using the term "Source" implied that the person in question might have reason to actually know something. Now they just grab whatever loosely affiliated partisan idiot who is willing to blather the office gossip at them. They need a new rule, that if a journalist publishes a story based off of an anonymous source dishing inaccurate rumors, every story they write in the future should have a warning label declaring their willingness to be a patzy. When a source gives their name, it is their integrity in question. When a source is anonymous, it is the journalists integrity that is in question.