Not just locally, but by national networks, newspapers, and cable cable news media. Sometimes, I was at the forefront of the story. Other times I was "someone in a position to know" or "someone close to the investigation" etc. 

When I was the latter two, I had inside knowledge, but not all details of the issue I was to confirm, which would have been published anyway while protecting my identity. I always demurred from being an anonymous source out of principle, but also because I didn't know all pertinent facts of the matter I was asked to confirm. 

True whistleblowers attach themselves and their motives accountably to their actions,. Named officials also have angles. Anonymous sources obsure both. The perspectives of reporters that rely on them are obscured also. I read this board daily, but post infrequently now. I have opinions, but don't know all the relevent facts. I suspect many of the anonymous sources behind issues discussed here don't know them either.