While studying journalism there was one thing drilled in to us again and again. The phrase "an unnamed source" was completely unacceptable. Apparently this holds true until you start writing for "real" papers.
Every time I open the paper "unnamed sources" pop up everywhere. This morning for instance, The Globe and Mail ran a story in which they quoted a mother who's son is accused of a crime. She was not named because her son is under age, but was quoted saying inflammatory, accusatory things that she is not accountable for because she isn't identified.
Would she have said the same things if her name had been printed? I don't know, but would sure like to.
That's what frosts me this morning.