Have you ever wondered, as I have, about "anonymous sources?"

"The White House will announce the selection of Groves on Thursday, a Commerce Department official told The Associated Press. The official demanded anonymity because the individual was not authorized to speak before the announcement."

There are two potentially disturbing issues: 

1) What's the credibility of a source that won't take responsibility for what he says and is in apparent violation of the conditions of his employment? What are his motivations?

2) There is the possibility of someone getting away with a dangerous and criminal act. Consider:

"A Los Alamos scientist revealed the details of the top-secret "Manhattan Project" but demanded anonymity because he could be charged, convicted and executed for treason." It's hard to see that "journalistic ethics" could trump the demands of national security to force revelation of the source in such a case at least to the FBI if not to the public.

As in Watergate, there is the rare justification, if someone wants to expose criminal activity and fears retribution, but then there is the procedure followed which has the anonymity breached for  a small number of confidential but responsible parties.

The WSJ wonders similarly: 

The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.

It sounds as though what they were trying to avoid was not a misunderstanding, but White House officials' understanding who was complaining to the press.