I disagree with the strategy of dismissing"unnamed sources" as a blanket rule. Using anonymous sources is how Watergate was broken. Citing unnamed sources in itself a bad thing, it's a privilege to be exercised by news vendors of high quality and reputation, which is specifically why I think my list is a pretty good starting point for eliminating the low quality vendors so that you can start possibly taking their unnamed sources with some seriousness again.
Unfortunately, crap sources today have elbowed their way to the front of the crowd to be taken with some seriousness, such as Think Progress, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Breitbart, Infowars, Alex Jones, Breitbart and WND. In the past we all knew the National Enquirer was nonsense. It existed to be pointed and laughed at in the supermarket checkout lane. Something happened today to make those tabloids explode in number and the echo-chamber effect of the internet has allowed people to treat them as legitimate. Those crap sources helped spoil it for everyone by making it more difficult to accept news stories even though nobody should have ever been reading them in the first place.
Now for the sources more in the center, the quality of some have fallen pretty low due to the ad-driven nature of their sites, resulting in more sensationalist stories, clickbait and ads disguised as stories. These are the news sites, network and online, that tend to be in the crosshairs of The Daily Show. It may be that if we truly want high quality news that doesn't fall victim to the ad-driven tradition in the future, we have to just break down and pay for them, though for now there are still some good sources you can use if you just take control of your feed and sensibly filter out the dross. I will be much more open to that "unnamed source" if it's in the Guardian or Wall Street Journal versus CNN or USA Today.