Incompetence or Following the Rules?

“In courts they call it hearsay and it’s not allowed because it’s not fair, so why is it fair in a newspaper?”

when asked what he thought about reporters using anonymous sources in articles (18).

I agree.  Though some people would argue that this is an accepted practice in journalism, I find that it is an easy way for reporters to make up facts, quotes, and to stretch the truth.  Reporters cannot be held as accountable for what they write if the editor has no way to check up on their "facts."  Likewise, the reader cannot trust what the reporter is saying if there is no name attached to the source.  For all we know, those statistics on childhood obesity that Reporter Smiley wrote in his article came from Joe Sixpak of 113 Hootin' Holler Lane. 

Solutions

There needs to be a system in which reporters attribute facts to certain people. 

1.)  This could be done simply through citing the source in the sentence like magazines do.  For instance,  Cosmopolitan might write something like:

"Blame them on hormonelike body chemicals called prostaglandins, which trigger uterine contractions to expel blood and uterine tissue from your body, explains Susan Brill, MD, director of adolescent medicine at Saint Peter's University Hospital, in New Brunswick, New Jersey" (Cosmo.com).  

If a magazine can do it and readers buy up magazines, newspapers can do it to. 

2.)  Another way newspapers could ensure they are citing sources is to leave a page at the end of the paper (like magazines do so you can find out where to buy those beauty products you saw on page 36) where they list the sources with a page number and small description linking it to the article in the paper.  

3.)  Readers could be refered to a webpage where a list of sources is named.

These are my solutions...what are yours?