Selective sourcing

Bourque Newswatch is apparently calling into question the CP's actions in reporting on the Cons' Harry Rosen overreaction, suggesting through the headline "Canadian Press Fact or Fib" that an anonymously-written article citing an anonymous source must be inherently unreliable when the Cons look bad as a result.

Now, the criticism would be applause-worthy if it seemed to be based on anything approaching a general principle against gratuitous anonymity - both in the media and in government. But can anybody remember Bourque having the slightest concern in the past about the Cons' consistent pattern of anonymous and self-serving leaks? And if not, does this mean that Bourque is merely playing enforcer in ensuring that the impact of anonymous sources runs only in the Cons' favour, as anything which reflects poorly is to be considered untruthful?

Just curious...

What's the going rate to secure top billing for a "Pierre Bourque: Toxic Monster?" headline on Canada's leading pay-per-news site?