I'm not a fan of anonymous sources, yet I accept that they sometimes grease the wheels of journalism when there's no other way to get out some information. But the Boston Globe took anonymous sources to a new level absurdity.
Reporting on the NY Times Company's threat to shut down the Globe, reporters Robert Gavin and Robert Weisman write:
The Times Co. is seeking concessions from the union because the New York company, which is also suffering from the recession, can no longer subsidize the Globe's losses, said the Globe employee who requested anonymity because the person is not authorized to speak publicly. The Times Co. posted a net loss of $57.8 million in 2008.
So Gavin and Weisman 1) auoted a fellow Globe employee anonymously, 2) about an issue they all have a stake in, 3) saying that the Globe and its parent company are losing money, which is no secret anyway.
How ethical and intelligent is that?