This is the Washington Post we're talking about, right?

This is the Washington Post we're talking about, right?

From the Washington Post: a comprehensive analysis and explanation of their fairness and accuracy policies, including a discussion of the use of anonymous sources.

I, like many people, despise anonymous sources. It's nice to hear someone apologize for having to use them. But much of the problem comes from protection of people whose information is not ni fact sensitive while skewering up those who are in actual danger. There isn't a consistency in the standards. What that means is that the press gets manipulated by its interviews, especially in Washington.