The Times, at least a few years back, had a quite frequent habit of using phrases such as "sources say" or "according to sources" or "people familiar with the matter." It wasn't always like that.
Some of that is fine as people sometimes would like to remain anonymous and have the trust of the publication, journalist, and readers. Sure, many touchy stories are important and people can give quotes on background. But that can't become a consistent habit without, at some point, providing better attribution when a string of stories bear some relation.
I've cut back on the Times for the most part due to my issues with "sources say," but maybe they've improved.
Some of that is fine as people sometimes would like to remain anonymous and have the trust of the publication, journalist, and readers. Sure, many touchy stories are important and people can give quotes on background. But that can't become a consistent habit without, at some point, providing better attribution when a string of stories bear some relation.
I've cut back on the Times for the most part due to my issues with "sources say," but maybe they've improved.