Anonymous sources without corroboration or other verification might as well be made up. We could literally write anything with “anonymous sources,” but unless there is some other validation or evidence, it’s Shrodinger’s Cat: it is equally true and false.
You do have validation: that Bloomberg has in the past been reliable and that it would be harmful to Bloomberg to publish such a story falsely. It's literally what editors are there for.
Certainly I might not believe "briandear" writing an article with only confidential sources (and really, that should be the term, not anonymous), but you don't make your living by being a reliable source of news.
