From time to time the White House holds background briefings in which the briefer is for various reasons unidentified. Sometimes the subject relates to foreign policy matters where the administration wants to send a message that might be considered undiplomatic if attached to a named official. Sometimes it’s a question of domestic policy where the administration doesn’t want the official’s name splashed all over the news. And sometimes it’s just because. Sometimes reporters explain why the official wants to remain anonymous, and sometimes they don’t.
Today’s Senior Administration Official spent a few minutes talking to the press about the president’s last-ditch campaign swing before he heads down to Texas to wait out the elections. The official said absolutely nothing exceptional other than that some races are tight, that the president is “happy to campaign” with scandal-ridden Nevada congressman Jim Gibbons and mistress-choking Ohio congressman Don Sherwood, and that the various Republican campaign organizations are pouring money into specific tight races.
The official could be Karl Rove, who almost always speaks anonymously unless he’s at an open-press speaking engagement calling Democrats traitors, or Tony Snow, who has taken a much more active role in campaigning than any previous press secretary, Republican or Democrat, and seems a bit sensitive about it, or a handful of others actively involved in the campaign. Whoever it is, the most plausible reason for the anonymity is that the official refused to offer anything but happy talk on the record. Anonymously, he’s acknowledging that a lot of races are very tight and that while the only candidates willing to appear with the president are the ones who are in desperate political and possibly legal trouble, he’s still raising a ton of money. If named he’d have to follow the party line and refuse to acknowledge any worries, which would lead to acrimony in the close confines of the press area aboard Air Force One.
Here’s a not quite earthshaking story by New York Times reporter Ann Kornblut, one among dozens of such, which includes a reference to the senior administration official in the last few paragraphs but doesn’t include an explanation of the anonymity. And here’s an excerpt of the stunningly controversial remarks from the gaggle.
Q But where do you see the hottest action right now? I mean for you guys, is Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia still the firewall? Has that changed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Certainly those are the three most competitive Republican states today. I would argue, based on everything I’ve seen, that Conrad Burns has really made great inroads in his election, and is now tied, essentially, today. We are hopeful and believe strongly, as these events over time have proven out, will really be a good boost for the turnout. So today’s visit was very timely. But, you know, we’re optimistic about New Jersey, and we find when we’re competitive dollars-wise with Democrats, given the ethical clouds hanging over the current senator, that’s a real good opportunity.
Michael Steele is within striking distance. There’s a lot of mixed polling out of Michigan. I think that’s still a tough race, but the NRSC is invested there in the final days. The DSCC has countered in Arizona. It strikes me that that was more of a way to say, well, since they went up in Maryland and Michigan we’d better do something else to go on offensive.
Q But of all these places you’re in in these few days — you mentioned Florida being there for the governor’s race, and the ticket, you talked about congressional races — these are two Senate races in Montana and Missouri. If I’m missing something, those are the only two Senate races you’re diving into at this point. Are these the two that you fear most?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: These are the two where we believe the President can have the biggest impact on turnout. And given the calculation you make in terms of all the schedule and where you need to be and how to best boost turnout and who needs help, those are the two where it made the best sense to travel to.
Riveting, yes? But everyone went along with the anonymity and no one appears to have explained it. Many newspapers have codified policies about anonymous sources, ranging from complete bans to clearly delineated circumstances under which those sources can be used and how they must be explained. Take, for instance, the post-Jayson Blair New York Times.
The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers newsworthy and reliable. When possible, reporter and editor should discuss any promise of anonymity before it is made, or before the reporting begins on a story that may result in such a commitment. (Some beats, like criminal justice or national security, may carry standing authorization for the reporter to grant anonymity.) The stylebook discusses the forms of attribution for such cases: the general rule is to tell readers as much as we can about the placement and known motivation of the source. While we avoid automatic phrases about a source’s having “insisted on anonymity,” we should try to state tersely what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, especially when we can shed light on the source’s reasons. The Times does not dissemble about its sources – does not, for example, refer to a single person as “sources” and does not say “other officials” when quoting someone who has already been cited by name. There can be no prescribed formula for such attribution, but it should be literally truthful, and not coy.
Or you can just say “screw it” and ignore the policy.
Did anyone challenge the request for anonymity? Did anyone ask for a reason? None of the stories suggest that either of those things happened. It’s a minor sin under the circumstances, but it’s representative of the go along-get along relationship between the press and the White House. More than that, it’s just plain stupid: they didn’t even need this guy to write the story. The only thing they couldn’t have gotten from the flight plan were the internal Republican polls, and the SAO wouldn’t talk about those.
Reporters can’t walk out of a gaggle on Air Force One, or at least the smarter ones wouldn’t, but they could at least have told the official to take a hike on the anonymity front.
