Anonymous sources do tend to be more trustworthy than named sources, actually. That's because accountability isn't just dropped. Rather, the publisher's and th

Anonymous sources do tend to be more trustworthy than named sources, actually. That's because accountability isn't just dropped. Rather, the publisher's and the reporter's reputation replace that of the source. And a journalist faces a far greater risk for making stuff up: where you could survive a lie or two as a politician or career official, a journalist's career is essentially over when. Even the source actually faces more scrutiny when being quoted anonymously: when they are found to have lied, the journalist is no longer bound to their promise of confidentiality. When revealed to have fed lies to journalists, they face far more consequences because they exposed the journalist to such existential risks. The result is a loss of trust by exactly those people you need to shape the conversion. It's rather rare that any single issue is worth such risks to your career.