From a New York Times news article headlined "$11 million severance reported for Murdoch Aide":
A former employee of The News of the World, the paper at the heart of the scandal, said that the figure of about $11.3 million that was reported in The Financial Times on Tuesday was consistent with the figure being discussed within News International at the time that Ms. Brooks quit.
The former employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of a confidentiality clause in his own severance agreement with the company...
This is a wonderful example of the use of anonymous sources. If the former employee has to be anonymous because he is violating his own severance agreement, why should anyone believe what the former employee has to say? The Times is basically identifying the person as someone who is willing to violate the terms of an agreement in which money has been paid, in other words, as an untrustworthy person. News Corp. might want to consider suing the Times for disclosure of the source's identity so that News Corp. can retrieve for its shareholders whatever money was paid out in the severance agreement in return for a promise of confidentiality that has been breached.