The Washington Prowler, American Spectator's D.C. blog, has a habit of rarely, if ever quoting, people by name.

As Media Matters noted last week, The Prowler posted an anonymously-sourced item claiming that the Obama Administration had conspired to cover up a Medicare actuary report. The Prowler's claims were quickly discredited.

Time and again, the Prowler has published inflammatory reports that are apparently damaging to Democrats and progressives based solely on anonymous quotes attributed to sources such as “Democratic staffer” or “Senate committee source.”

This practice has some veteran D.C. reporters and top bloggers crying foul, with even some conservatives questioning the veracity of the Prowler's reporting.

Jim Geraghty of National Review took it to task in the April 28 edition of his newsletter, Morning Jolt.

“I've been wondering if the quotes from anonymous sources that appear in the American Spectator's Prowler column were a little too good to be true since, oh, 2004," he wrote. “I know how tough it is to get Democratic sources to talk to conservative publications ('Hi, this is Jim Geraghty with National Review and... hello? Hello?') and yet, one disgruntled Democrat after another apparently picks up the phone and trashes their bosses to the AmSpec's Prowler in vivid and colorful terms that confirm every conservative's worst suspicions.

”So I'm less than shocked that Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is categorically denying the latest jaw-dropping allegation from the Prowler, that his office sat on a report that the health care bill would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers until after the bill passed."

Geraghty later added: “Putting faith in a Prowler report requires caution and assessment of risk, much like handling flammable materials or giving up three draft picks to get Tim Tebow."

Another critique came from Allahpundit, the conservative blogger at Hot Air, back in 2006: “Another day, another anonymous left-wing source who knows someone who might have overheard something at a party somewhere in DC quoted in the Prowler." Allahpundit went on to write, “A reader reminds me that the Prowler once quoted an unnamed 'Republican leadership staffer' as blaming Harry Reid for that Terri Schiavo memo that turned out to have been written by one of Mel Martinez's staffers.”

Several other D.C. voices have recently weighed in with criticism of Washington Prowler's practices.

“The problem is The Prowler will not check it out,” said David Weigel, who writes the Right Now blog for The Washington Post. “There is no evidence they check out what they hear. It is useful to have anonymous sources. But it is so impossible for what they write about to be proven -- it is so rumor-based -- it is impossible to follow up.”

Steve Thomma, a top White House reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, said of The Prowler: “This Web site never quotes anyone by name, and it has a remarkable talent for finding great quotes from always-anonymous aides. It's a little surprising, given that I've never run into one of their reporters in the White House.”

Marcy Wheeler, who blogs as Empty Wheel for FireDogLake.com, said: “The guy (or woman) writing this aspires to be the next Bob Novak and the use of anonymous sources is no more or less egregious than Novak's was. And as much as I think Novak was reprehensible, I also think he was smarter than the folks writing this in that he was apparently better at advancing his own ideology through gossip columns but also at serving as the vehicle for others' ideology to add 'value' to his readers.”

American Spectator editors did not return calls seeking comment.

Dan Froomkin, one of the first D.C. bloggers for The Washington Post who now covers the White House for Huffington Post, cited the dangers of the Prowler's practice.

“Any place on the Web or off the Web where most of its sourcing is anonymous is suspect,” Froomkin told me. “Especially on the Internet, where it is a wild and wooley frontier. How do you know if they are making stuff up?”

David Corn, former Washington editor for The Nation and now Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones, agreed: “If all they are doing is produced by anonymous sources, you have reason to be a little less accepting of that kind of reporting. It is fair game to wonder.”