If it's an anonymous source in a "legitimate" media outlet, I look at the context to see if there's a reason to grant the source anonymity. Sometimes it's because the source is getting some information out ahead of the scheduled release. That's an iffy situation, but it's become so commonplace that I ignore the granting of anonymity.
Other times, a source is anonymous for no apparent reason. Their information isn't all that confidential, but I suspect the source is a friend of the reporter who may not have the permission to speak from a superior. In that case, I presume the reporter was too lazy to go up the ladder to get the source on the record.
When a story is largely constructed on an anonymous source (or sources), it tells me either the story is so hot that nobody can risk going on the record. This is the case about once a decade. The rest of the time, I figure the reporter or his outlet have an axe to grind. Reporting is - or should be - hard work. Allowing a source to remain anonymous without a solid basis from other known sources is slipshod work, but I don't see media outlets all that invested in getting the story right when they're too busy getting the story first.
How much of the story depends on an unnamed source or sources? Is there a factual foundation or basis for the anonymous source that connects the rest of the story? Or is the story pretty much a standalone report resting on unnamed sources? Finally, does the story comport with a known bias of the media outlet? The less factual basis there is for the story, and the more that disparate elements are tied together by speculation, the less likely I am to trust an anonymous source.
= new reply since forum marked as read
