Atrios caught Carl Hulse and Nagourney the Noble handing out the anonymity to WH sources today:
A senior White House official, who insisted on anonymity in discussing the early phases of the nomination, echoed Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, saying, "There has been a long-term standard that the appropriateness of questioning does not include asking judges to take specific sides or positions regarding cases they may hear one day."
For fun read some of the New York Times' "Principles for Granting Anonymity" (emph mine)
The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy.
It's the third source they have for the point that litmus testing should be verboten.
We will not use anonymous sourcing when sources we can name are readily available.
Third source. It just completed the GOP trifecta of House, Senate and WH.
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.
The very next paragraph starts with this sentence: The arguments hinted at the partisan intensity of what will be the first Supreme Court confirmation hearings in nearly 11 years.
Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous.
Rewrite!
Comments