"Don't name the source" might examine circumstances in which we feel obliged to provide information we are aware of but are unable to completely acknowledge its source. Imagine a society in which it is considered appropriate to provide knowledge without disclosing its source, much like maintaining secrecy. In order to balance safety and the truth, journalists may use anonymous sources to safeguard their identities. Not revealing a confidence carries an underlying obligation, much like sharing secrets with friends.
Anonymous sources have a new power in the digital age. The choice to remain anonymous can either increase trust or, on the other hand, foster scepticism. Examples of this include forums where people provide uncensored advise and whistleblowers who raise important issues without disclosing their identities. We deal with it in our personal life as well, whether it's maintaining friendship confidentiality or withholding information from family members.
However, there are moral implications to this idea. The veracity of information may be questioned if it is not mentioned. "Is this true?," the audience is left to wonder. Who informed you? "Don't name the source" could be seen as a test of sincerity for both the sharer and the listener, and trust is important in this context.