DallasEast;2487540 said:
Okay, I'm jumping back into the pool again.
I'm my opinion, the journalistic relevance of using anonymous sources must be weighed against the importance of the information being relayed by its source. Watergate was a true, organized conspiracy to dupe the enitre American public of illegal transgressions. Whatever Werder may or may not have uncovered involving Terrell Owens pales incredibly by comparison.
That's why I said the problem is not with the " anonymous source ", but with " content ".
" Anonymous sources ", alot of times ( if not all the times), are parties with agendas. One of the jobs of a journalist is to do exactly what you said: weigh the importance of the information.
Had I been Werder, I would have gone to Roy Williams, Romo, Garrett, other coaches, even T.O. himself, individualy ( assuming that none of them are the source themselves, of course ) and said: " Hey Mr Romo, or Mr Williams..etc, I'm sitting on this story, but I want to give you an opportunity to present your side ".
Depending on the answers that I get, then I make the decision on wether to go with it or not. At least that way, I'd feel comfortable enough to report that I went to the parties themselves ( even if they all say " no comment " ) and/or according to MULTIPLE team sources this is what I got. This way, I get to see if the original " anonymous source(s) " has an angle and, if so, what is it.
IMO, I think that Werder jumped the gun and just went straight to the story using just the " anonymous source " angle and, even if it's accurate, it looks sloppy and weak.
:starspin
I wish he would have tried. 
