There's a big difference between anonymously-sourced fact and anonymously sourced conjecture/opinion.
BALL COACH 1: "Look, I can't say anything on the record, because Team X wants to announce it themselves. But we've agreed on a contract, and I just informed Team Y that I'm leaving to take the job."
BALL COACH 2: "Look, off the record? Our quarterback can barely spell his name. I wouldn't draft him."
I would argue that using BALL COACH 2 as an anonymous source is what does the most damage to our profession. It's unfair, plain and simple. An opinion only has journalistic value if it includes the context of the opinion-giver's identity. Otherwise, it is meaningless. In the pursuit of truth, an opinion from an unidentified person has as much value as an anonymous message board comment.
The minimum bar should be, "Is what I'm writing falsifiable information?" BALL COACH 1 is either leaving for Team X or he isn't. From there, it's a two-pronged issued: 1) Are you confident your source is telling you the truth? 2) Can you provide readers with enough identifying information about the source of your information that they believe it is true?
BALL COACH 1: "Look, I can't say anything on the record, because Team X wants to announce it themselves. But we've agreed on a contract, and I just informed Team Y that I'm leaving to take the job."
BALL COACH 2: "Look, off the record? Our quarterback can barely spell his name. I wouldn't draft him."
I would argue that using BALL COACH 2 as an anonymous source is what does the most damage to our profession. It's unfair, plain and simple. An opinion only has journalistic value if it includes the context of the opinion-giver's identity. Otherwise, it is meaningless. In the pursuit of truth, an opinion from an unidentified person has as much value as an anonymous message board comment.
The minimum bar should be, "Is what I'm writing falsifiable information?" BALL COACH 1 is either leaving for Team X or he isn't. From there, it's a two-pronged issued: 1) Are you confident your source is telling you the truth? 2) Can you provide readers with enough identifying information about the source of your information that they believe it is true?