NY Times Manaing Editor Jill Abramson talks about the use of anonymous sources:

You raise the issue of anonymous sources, which have proliferated in Washington-based reporting over time. Inside the paper, we call the sources of these stories "anonymice." And yes, these government officials are sometimes people who want to scamper back into their holes so nobody knows they have talked to the press. It is very difficult for readers to assess why they should trust a quote from a government official who refuses to be named. Our reporters and editors know this, which is why in recent years we have tried to publish much more information about why a source won't let us use his or her name and what the motivation for talking to us might be. We have also become more aggressive about pushing our sources to let us name them and being less willing to grant anonymity in order to get an interview. We have established new rules that require editors to know more about the sourcing of their reporters' stories.

Sometimes we actually decide to take a pass on getting access for an interview if it is off the record. In the past year, The Times passed up an opportunity to be part of a small group of reporters who went to the White House to talk to President Bush because the session was off the record. This was a difficult decision, because there is news value in reporters in hearing and seeing any president talk more informally, even if it is simply insight into how he frames his ideas. But in this case we believed the ground rules meant we had to deny our readers too much of the fruits of such a visit. Each of these cases presents a slightly different balancing test, between the possible gain to readers from anonymously given information and the fact that information presented anonymously means the reader will have a hard time making an independent judgment about credibility.