i can see the value of unnamed government sources in some circumstances. but it's much too easy for the powers-that-be to use unnamed sources to spread horseshit without taking any heat when the public notices the smell. so i'm basically behind KSFR on this one.
if someone in the government wants to tell the press something, they should be willing to put their name on it. anonymous sources are only valuable to the extent that they give you better information you can get from non-anonymous sources. because "unnamed sources" is used to often by the government to evade responsibility for leaking bad information, the press should simply stop taking anonymous information.
though i hope that will is right and that KSFR's decision catches on, i doubt if it will. the urge to scoop is just too strong. there's an enormous incentive for a news outlet to publish a sexy unsourced tid-bit, especially if all it's competitors won't.
