Might have something to do with the fact that in the past few years, more than a few "journalists" from respected major publications got caught red-handed with citing sources that were later proven to be less than credible. Here is an example of that reported by Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...)

>Just because you don’t like what the anonymous sources have to say doesn’t mean that it’s worthless.

I tend to be suspicious of anonymous sources a lot of times even when they say what I like. That statement was just a baseless assumption about me on your part.