As a former ink-stained wretch, I have to side a bit with Shivas on this:
-- There are sources, of course, that need to be protected for anonymity, but that's because their disclosure would damage some kind of relationship the source has with the subject at hand. The standards for using anonymous sources vary widely across the industry, and even within a particular newspaper/media outlet. Editors often give wider latitude to reporters based on their experience working with that reporter. The reason these particular sources (I grant at face value it was at least two, the usual standard for publishing, and indicated by the use of the word "sources") were granted anonymity is quite unclear from the story; oftentimes these days, newspapers will go to some length to describe why the source needs to remain anonymous. Presumably the sources are involved somehow in the matter of Butler's change in policy, but it's not clear at all from the story why they were granted anonymity.
-- There are ways to describe sources, in a manner that provides some sort of background or connection to the story, that tells us why they might know the information, and why they may be disclosing it. Such descriptions will often help build credibility for the story. The term "industry sources" strikes me about as broad as you can write for this kind of story -- that's anyone from the blue coats in Far Hills to someone in Finchem's office, to someone in the Western Golf Association, to someone at Butler, to some golf pro -- all of whom one might speculate has some interest in this story, and/or an interest in seeing Butler change its policy. It's an awfully loose characterization of the source -- if I'm an editor working that story, I'd demand something more definitive (absent some rationale as to why that description had to be so broad) -- say, someone in the industry who has a reason for knowing about this study, or some connection to it in some way. "Officials with the PGA Tour, who are interested in a permanent stop for the Tour in Chicago and view Butler as an ideal candidate" lends more credibility to the story than "industry sources."
-- The second story, using the first story as an attribution for comments by Butler officials, clearly strikes me as over the line. I don't think that attribution should've been used; it should've been stricken from the story, and that's a pretty easy thing to check. Loose editing of bad reporting.
-- The Trib's Groundhog-Day-like interest in this story does raise some questions about what's driving the story. Butler's policy is well known, and it hasn't changed in the years since the club was formed. That's not to say a change in the policy isn't newsworthy; it is, as would be stories that provide insights into how and whether such a change is under consideration. But there is a "sky is falling" sense around this story that, the more time it's published, raises questions about the credibility of those promoting it. Shivas sees it as the Trib.; I'd suggest it goes beyond that, with (this is purely speculation) folks feeding the story to the Trib on a regular basis for their own particular reasons.