Anonymous overkill?

More and more, I'm hearing the use of anonymous sources in pretty much every story and at some points I wonder if it's really necessary.

I know it seems like the stone ages since this happened, but anonymous sources once didn't exist. In fact, I don't know if there was ever a time where they were used prior to the Watergate scandal.

But today, it seems like the amount of on the record sources are diminishing more and more by the day. The main reason for this is because rather than waiting for something to become official, the reports are mostly rumor and the news organization just hopes they got it right.

I haven't figured out a reason why inside sources from the White House would disclose something that's not official or why they bother commenting on something that they aren't allowed to talk about.

Many times the source doesn't even say something that has a whole lot of value. You'll hear from a news organization that an anonymous source told news organization x that George Bush is going to have lunch with Laura today.

OK it's not that ridiculous, but we can all probably find a time where we heard an anonymous source cited for something that shouldn't be all that confidential. When writers sign up for the Collegian, they are prohibited from using anonymous sources as its too easy to make something up from that.

I can count on one hand the amount of times I have heard editors cite anonymous sources, and those were times when keeping the source off the record actually mattered. I know news organizations have to fill space on their websites and air-time on TV, but is it that hard to expect the media to have an on-the-record source and make sure its actually true?