From a New York Times piece on Michael Jackson’s finances:
“It’s all a mess,” said one executive involved in Mr. Jackson’s financial affairs who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of respect for the entertainer’s family. “No one really knows what is going on, but these are early days.”
While I approve of the newish policy of requiring an explanation in the text when a source is granted anonymity, it seems like that reason ought to at least pass a superficial plausibility check—or, in this case, the straight face test. It’s hard to see why it’s somehow more respectful toward the family to say these things anonymously, after all. What they mean is that he spoke on condition of anonymity because he was being disrespectful by blabbing about the artist’s finances to a national newspaper, and didn’t want to be held responsible for it.