Michelle McPhee uses an anonymous "high-ranking New York police" source with no apparent connection to the events at hand to make a point in a story critical of an event in Boston sponsored by the Boston Police.

"It’s not corrupt, but it’s tacky. It gives the appearance of selling influence with police commanders,” said a high-ranking New York police official who requested anonymity. “The events smell of corporate CEOs buying face time with Boston police officials.”

My question: Why the need for anonymity and why did the reporter let them have it? What is it about a comment on an event by an much smaller organization four hundred miles away that requires someone to hide their identity? Is it merely for the chance to slam another police department? If so, that's what I call tacky.

Ironically, another Herald article today scrutinizes the credibility of information provided by sources who are given hidden incentives for talking.

(See the About section for my disclosure disclaimer.)