I recall some years ago a journalist was interested in doing a story about the pedophiles at GirlChat and giving us a chance to tell our side of the story.
But her editor shot it down, saying that she could only do this if she could record our real identities, because anonymous sources couldn't be trusted - even knowing that our anonymity was our only defense against people like himself. Actually, probably because he knew that anonymity was our only defense against someone like himself.
So how much good is that "judgment" of our "betters"?
BTW, up until the mid-20th century everyone knew that journalists were hacks, as disreputable as actors.