YSK how to scrutinize an article with anonymous sources

Why YSK: With the increase in accusations of fake news, the prevalence of disinformation campaigns, and the increasingly prominent usages of anonymous sources in journalism , being able to tell which sources to trust, and which sources to dismiss, is more important than ever.

This is something I was struggling with recently and I found a pretty helpful resource

So here are some basic tips (see the source) that help identify reputable information in the face of anonymous sources

1. Look for multiple anonymous sources being cited for the same information. Anonymous or no, sources can be wrong, so having multiple sources (even anonymous ones) makes a story more reliable.
   If multiple news outlets have independently verified the information, that's even better. The fact that multiple news agencies are putting their reputations on the line to report the information independently (rather than citing each other) increase the chances that the information was truthfully obtained, even if the sources remain anonymous
2. Beware of claims that cannot be verified or that make predictions about the future. People can't see the future, so if the claim doesn't pan out there is usually an easy explanation. There is not much on the line for these kinds of stories and thus there is not as much incentive to be careful about whats reported. This is more true for events that can easily change course (potential firing of an employee) than for larger events that require more planning, or events that happened in the past and may have witnesses or other record of their veracity.
3. Specific identifying information about the sources help to make them more trustworthy. If an anonymous source is "An anonymous member of the house judiciary committee" it is a little more reliable than "An unnamed US congressperson" which is much more reliable than "A source familiar with the situation".
4. Consider the Author and their reporting agency. Larger news organizations are more likely to have access to higher priority sources, and reporters with long track records of being reputable are more likely to be trustworthy than those without such records.
5. Consider the reactions an the pharsing of the denials. We've all seen it before - someone will issue a denial that is overly specific or vague to dispute the information. Doing so can lend veracity to the source because the official cannot outright deny the claim without lying. This, however, depends highly on officials who have an incentive not to lie.

And because we are on the topic of trustworthiness - a few additional resources about how different organizations treat their anonymous sources:

https://www.propublica.org/article/ask-propublica-illinois-vetting-anonymous-sources

https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/anonymous-sources