No, muckamuck, I fully believe within the freedom of the press.

What is going on now is nothing of the sort.

When a story can be printed within no substantial source, that is a 'named' source, well, there is really no story, is there?

I hold both sides unto the same benefit.

Either produce a named, or bonafide source, or do not print the story, ESPECIALLY regarding protected, or classified information.

Freedom of the press is just as freedom of speech, muckamuck.

One may exercise said freedom as one wishes, but there are consequences unto said freedom.

Unanimous  sources mean nothing, as they are but a playground of supposed information, muckamuck, not valid information.

Should one wish to relay said information under the rules of the Whistle blower act, than fine.

Let them do so.

But to continually identify only as an 'anonymous' source, either given or received, means nothing.

Why?

Without conviction, there is no truth, and without name, there is no conviction.