In an ideal world, every story we put to air or online would be fully and transparently sourced. People with important information to share would have the courage and safety to be named in our stories and not face repercussions. Naming sources is always our preferred choice.

But there can be a fine balance between transparency and accountability in a journalist's pursuit of the truth. Information from unnamed sources can be a powerful tool to learn important and potentially controversial facts about a story.

At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

Our ability to protect sources allows people with important information to come forward and expose matters of public interest. If we do not properly protect our confidential sources, potential sources will not trust us. This compromises our ability to expose abuses of power.

It is common to hear that a source spoke to a particular news organization "on condition of anonymity." Most recently, the Atlantic published an article citing "anonymous sources" who revealed disparaging remarks allegedly made by U.S. President Donald Trump against military veterans. What was lost on some critics of the story is that the unnamed sources were not anonymous to the reporter or his editor.

For those who think 'anonymous' sources aren't real sources.

Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.

Of course anonymous source can be real. But that isn't the question. The question is whether the sources claims are truthful and provable. So, the only way for that to happen is if these anonymous sources give their evidence to the proper authorities for action.

The anonymous accusers don't even have to face the accused anymore so their anonymity can be safeguarded no matter the circumstances.

Yet, there's still been no proof laid on the table to corroborate these accusations and until that happens it's nothing more than an accusation.

So until "j'accuse" becomes the acceptable method of ascertaining guilt or innocence instead of the troublesome "burden of proof" one, anonymous sources still have to present their evidence if not their names before they're to be believed.

At CBC News, when considering whether or not to shield a source's identity, we first take great care to ensure that the information provided is credible. But more importantly, we must be sure that the value of that information is worth sacrificing a level of transparency.

Then ask yourself why anonymous sources want remain anonymous if speaking the truth.

Ask Colonel Vindman.

Or the families of the children murdered at sandy hook harassed by right wing conspiracy nuts.

A lie goes around the world three times before the truth puts its boots on.

Example:

The people get to decide who they trust.

Because that has worked so well in the past.

But he's right. We can't force people to trust sources. The problem is we also don't teach people how to determine credible sources. So you get smooth brains down south taking what some idiot with no education says as true and not the doctors/researchers who have spent their lives in the field.

That's what happens when education and academia is attacked as elitist and propaganda.