SPJ Code of Ethics (2014): "Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge reliability and motivations"

Quote (SPJ Code of Ethics, 2014 revision):

"Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources."

Source: https://spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics

Confidence: Verified.

Companion: the Washington Post / two-source norm (Dec 2017): "There must be two sources with the same firsthand knowledge" before publication of contested claims. Industry-consensus in working newsrooms.

The "reliability and motivations" framing matters more than the citation mechanic. Readers need to evaluate not just what was said but who said it and why they might say it. A named source with credentials, affiliation, and date does all three. An anonymous source does none.

Pairs with BBC Editorial Guidelines §3.2.2: "All BBC output...must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested" and Reuters Handbook of Journalism: "A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. Anonymous sources are the weakest sources" — three converging professional-journalism standards on the same point.