There are 3 major problems with anonymous sources:

1. There is the possibility that they are completely fabricated.  If they are real or not, they appear the same, with one exception.  They have a tendency to confirm a convenient point of view.
2. There is no way to challenge the source.  While the source might believe what they say, it is also possible they are mistaking.
3. The source might be biased in many different ways.  For instance, if I were angry with someone, I might try to spread vicious rumors about him simply for revenge.

To be sure, there might be a grain of truth to what is said.  It does make it easier to sell the falsehood.

There is one more thing you might note.  The source might be completely truthful as far as it goes.  However, the source just might be withholding, or is unaware of something that might cast a different light on the situation.  let’s face it.  We have all been stuck in situations when all explanations make things sound worse.

It is a common practice among dummycrats and communists to use half-truths.  It is also a common practice among reporters and papers lacking ethics… such as The New York Times.   The truth is, I don’t believe anything from the Times, not until it is well confirmed.  This is especially true when they site anonymous sources.