The source wished to remain anonymous until such time as the story went to print, after which the sensitive information the source provided was no longer secret (having been published in the paper) and, thus, there was no reason to remain anonymous any longer.

I’ve written about this story – the Obama administration unilaterally and without legislative action (not that legislative action would have made it any better) slashing executives’ salaries – a couple of times. Here. And here.

And I still can’t get over this sentence:

The cuts will affect 25 of the most highly paid executives at each of five major financial companies and two automakers, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

They wanted to stay anonymous because the plan hadn’t been made public yet. But by talking to the paper, the sources themselves made the plan public. So there was no reason for them to remain anonymous.

Right?

So. Who were they?