Via Atrios, there's a great article on rethinking sources. It's an issue I often deal with since most of my sources are basically "on background" - not willing to be named as more than someone "close to the player" or a "team executive." I understand this, but it does undermine my reports slightly.
Worse, I've often wanted to 'out' one of my sources on the Rose story. I never will, but I've often said it would make people's head spin to know who it was. In one of my "don't write angry" moments, I almost did it, after the source did something that simply stunned me, but I'm glad I didn't. I simply can't do my job without my sources.
There's some net coverage of the SoSH/Schilling/Pinto situation that includes a personal, non-public email from me. I said nothing in there that I remotely regret, but I want to be clear that what I do as "Will Carroll" has nothing to do with the positions of my employers. Call me what you want - I can take it - but focus any criticism on me.