Anonymous Sources

What is a name? While yes, when a name is not on paper, its a means of addressing someone, of giving their identity and being a word to call. But on paper, in an article where the person is not the main focus, but the  words they say contribute to the point being made, what does it matter? If something they say does in fact deem itself important enough to be attributed to a person by name, they by all means the journalist should use wise discretion and include the name; but if a quote just adds flavor to the story, and the speaker would rather not be named, then I see no harm in not including it. 

As for an editors demand for a source that will allow his or her name to be used, perhaps a speaker might not be as candid if he or she knows that their words will be attributed. Illegal activity or unsavory behavior is most certainly not something a person would want associated with their name. But if that information helps along a story, then it seems ridiculous to rule out useful information for the sole reason that the speaker does not want to be named. This is most especially true if the alternative is a nameable source with inferior comments. 

Even some of the most intriguing and influential stories have involved anonymity; does name Deep Throat ring a bell?

It seems quite evident that journalists must use their discretion when deciding if appropriate to include an anonymous source. While editors ultimately have control, it seems they should be willing to lose a "Bob" or "Sally" for decent information.