Or when a Dallas newspaper reports a purported confession in the Oklahoma City bombing, which turns out to be a hoax. But when a news organization relies on sources it cannot name, then it makes itself responsible for the accuracy of the story. So you had better think twice about how good your sources are. I say this as one who has occasionally been burned myself. The Washington Post's style book says we should always assume that information provided by confidential sources is weaker than information attributable to real people.
Real people can lie and dissemble.
Some informants, whistle-blowers with important stories to tell, must remain anonymous. Check out the information. But remember that when your confidential source has manipulated you, you do not get to justify yourself by saying you were had by someone you cannot name. My concern is what we do to ordinary people and to the workings of justice. I am much more worried about the Richard Jewells than about government secrets.