This sums up my feelings on anonymous sources pretty clearly. You use them when you have no other options, when it is absolutely essential that the information be release and when it the naming of the source might create legitimate safety, employment or other dangers for the source.
This is from New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan:
When sources are nameless, they are also unaccountable. There is no price for them to pay when they get it wrong. But readers — and The Times’s credibility — do suffer. And in some cases, so do the reputations of those The Times is writing about. No “walk-back story” can fix any of that.
Send me an e-mail.