He Said What? Journalists Shy Away From Identifying Sources

A rather disturbing trend has descended upon journalism lately – many of the news stories published by news outlets contain nothing more than conjecture and speculation from unnamed sources.

For example, take a look at this story written by F. Abbas Rana at The Hill Times.

Note the language that is used:

one top Conservative, who did not want to be identified, told The Hill Times last week.

Some Liberals agree.

said one top Liberal who also did not want to be identified.

Tory insiders say they believe…

However, sources agreed…

Political insiders are waiting to see…

However, one Liberal said…

Yet, some Liberals say…

Moreover, The Hill Times reported last week (April 17) that several Liberal Senators…

however, another top Liberal also told…

one Liberal said despite…

The Liberal said some Liberals…

But federal Liberals also believe Prime Minister Harper’s…

Considering the amount of unnamed sources available in this article, it suddenly becomes hard to take what is written at face value. Without knowing the names of the various individuals cited and paraphrased in the article, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, be sure what is being reported is factually correct?

What qualifications are required in order to be considered a Tory or Liberal insider or a top Liberal or Conservative? Do journalists request to see a party membership card before proclaiming a source a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, etc?

At what point do articles like this one cease to be a news item and revert to a gossip column?