Unnamed Sources

When reading the news, one will invariably encounter 'anonymous sources' which are anonymous because of the sensitivity of the subject or because they are disclosing classified information. In either case, the 'government official' (or senior official) is not supposed to disclose the information to the media. Yet it occurs nearly every day. Why does it matter? It matters because the disclosure of some things are handled differently than the disclosure of others. The issue of 'domestic spying' (it's really international communications) brings criticism on the government while Valerie Plame's outing (a CIA agent) brings criticism on the 'anonymous source'. Both were illegal disclosures, but the minority party does not call for probes into both; the one's that hurt Bush take precedent. The media portrays the incidents in wholly different lights despite the facts. They are leaks. They should be handled in the same manner as other leaks. Modern acts of leaking are the politics of personal greed. This isn't Woodward and Bernstein reporting the revelations of Deep Throat (Mark Felt). It's malevolent partisanship.