In an episode of
Numb3rs I watched recently, a federal marshal says, "Do you how many witnesses we had before WITSEC? None. The IRS had to bust Al Capone because no one would come forth to testify."
Similarly, if it weren't for anonymous sources, we'd never have whistleblowers, and crimes like the Watergate scandal would never have come to light. Anonymous sources are indispensable for the preservation of a free press, and I'm all for their continued existence.
At the same time, I firmly believe everyone -- from the President of the United States to the bum on the street -- should bear responsibility for their words. The press in particular should be accountable for the veracity of what it publishes. If a story released on the strength of an anonymous source turns out to be demonstrably false, I believe the veil of anonymity should be lifted and both the source
and the reporter should be liable under slander and libel laws. That would (in theory) force reporters to be more careful to corroborate stories and make anonymous sources less comfortable to spin pure speculation, thereby slowing the onslaught of yes-he-did-no-he-didn't stores we endure nowadays.
The problem is that prosecuting libel and slander is so expensive and time consuming that statutes like the one I propose might not have as significant an impact as I hope.