If the source insists on anonymity, then it should automatically be suspected that the source is speaking inappropriately and should not be interviewed in the first place. He or she is speaking when he or she is not cleared to. In a command structure, that's a punishable offense.
A reporter with any semblance of integrity would not cite a person who would be willing to violate the law (or the UCMJ) in order to give that reporter the dirt on a case. That's not fair to the accused, it's not fair to the service, and it's not fair to the public.
On another thread I said that the only reason I could think of for the officials to remain anonymous was it may be the only way for the command to speak and not be accused of undue command influence.