We see over and over in the press...anonymous source said such and such...official speaks off the record...and when they do the press dutifully reports it all as fact. However when an OFFICIAL speaks ON THE RECORD...whoa...the press needs to verify it with other sources...can't take them at their word.
The thought process behind this is that if they speak off the record or their name is withheld they will be more honest than someone speaking on the record who would just repeat the "company" line.
I have no problem getting multiple sources. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that used to be standard procedure for the media, especially for anonymous sources? However, to say that an anonymous source could have any less than an agenda or any more likely to speak the truth than an official source is just ridiculous logic.
The real agenda is the liberal media and their method is if someone says something against the President or conservatives then whether anonymous or not, it is quickly reported without regard to verification, but if it is something that supports the President or conservatives then it needs to super duper verified first. Nah...no bias there at all.
And to the story linked above, it must be some very desperate people who are looking for anything to slam the VP who would even for a second think this non-story was reality!