[Uehreka]

That’s exactly what those guidelines say: https://www.nytimes.com/article/why-new-york-times-anonymous...

> What we consider before using anonymous sources:

> How do they know the information?

> What’s their motivation for telling us?

> Have they proved reliable in the past?

> Can we corroborate the information they provide?

> Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’ trust, the reporter and at least one editor is required to know the identity of the source. A senior newsroom editor must also approve the use of the information the source provides.

Is there a particular change you’re proposing?

[themafia]

>> Can we corroborate the information they provide?

I can only guess, but based on the reporting, it looks like they skipped this guideline.

>> Have they proved reliable in the past?

Which is half the battle. The real question is "have they lied to us in the past?"

[PeterStuer]

The change I'd propose is that they actually apply them, and not just to stifle cases that do not fit their narrative.