John McCain keeps complaining the the New York Time’s story about his close relationship with a Washington lobbyist was based on “anonymous sources.” That’s just ridiculous. An anonymous source is one that is unknown to the newspaper. No newspaper of any repute will quote, much less base stories on, anonymous sources.
McCain is just confusing an anonymous source with a confidential, or unnamed, source. The source of the Time’s story were former staffers of the Senator. They are certainly known to the Times; the Times has simply decided not to name them in the story. This happens all the time and is key to good journalism. If sources couldn’t remain confidential, they wouldn’t talk to newspapers. There are even laws in many states that protect the confidentiality of news sources.
The use of unnamed sources is certainly susceptible to abuse. In effect, we have to rely on the integrity of the newspaper. So who would you believe, the New York Times or a politician?