Thanks, that's a good article, but doesn't seem to support your claim of a double standard:

> Some will no doubt describe this double standard as an example of political bias, but it's probably better described as garden-variety sloppiness. It seems more likely that the Times does not have consistent standards here, and editors alternate between fostering over-reliance on anonymous sources and forbidding the practice.

i.e. not a "double standard", but no standard.