Specifically enough to show the source has credibility without being so specific that the source is inadvertently identified.

Much like on the schoolyard, there are no “take-backs.”

Take a breath and follow such accusations over time. They usually turn out to be false.

Not if it’s done right. Selecting only a phrase or even a single word from what a source said to use in a verbatim quote doesn’t mean the reporter is fundamentally misrepresenting what the source said.

The short answer is no, but it’s more complicated than that.

It works like any other kind of journalism, adhering to rules of verification, independence and accountability. And sometimes the scoops are world-changing.

This is a question of transparency and journalism ethics. And yes, some journalists and news organizations have been criticized and held responsible in court for just this situation.

Transparency is the “story behind the story,” and the more a news consumer knows about how a story is put together, the easier it is to evaluate—and trust—that information.

The use—and abuse—of anonymous sources is an ongoing and thorny debate in journalism.

Reporters always prefer to use named sources who are willing to go “on the record,” meaning that the information they provide can be attributed directly to them. But sometimes that’s just not possible.