What possible rationale is there for an organized-from-the-top briefing from officials who must not be named?
The only rationale I can think of is that they’re playing power games: either they’re hoping people get so pissed at this, that they pay less attention to meatier issues; or they’re trying to train the press into barking like a dog on command by issuing commands that arbitrarily break journalistic standards. As I understand it, sources are supposed to be named unless a source faces reprisal for speaking, and refusing to name a source, as the reporter in the article cited does, is a violation of this ethical standard.
But maybe there’s some other rationale. What do folks think?
To be clear, I’m not really pissed off about this, mostly just bewildered.
Pretty soon the procedure will be for the “senior administration officials” to sit in the dark behind a screen with their voices electronically distorted. And exit the room through a secret door.
Huh. I really didn’t realize that. What’s the point, do you know?
Here’s a WaPo article about the phenomenon. Bizarrely, it’s in the “lifestyle/style” section. I’m still not clear on why the administration would always want one; the best information in the article is this line:
To have a slightly less formal exchange. Part of it is the reassurance on the part of the agency that the reporters are there to listen and learn, and ask questions to better understand what’s going on, rather than engage in a little bit of showboating by asking questions to try to nail an Administration official on the record.
It’s also that background briefings are often very helpful to journalists, but sometimes it’s better if all journalists get the same info at the same time so it doesn’t look like favorites are being played.
But I do think that publishing a transcript of these briefings is weird.