Battle Over Background Briefings

McClellan said "that he would be glad to end the use of background-only briefings -- if White House reporters would stop using anonymous sources in their reporting," Strupp writes.

" 'I told them upfront that I would be the first to sign on if we could get an end to the use of anonymous sources in the media,' McClellan told E&P, referring to a meeting he had with a half-dozen Washington bureau chiefs last week. He said that 'people in the heartland' feel that 'anonymous sources use them to hide behind efforts to generate negative publicity.'. . . .

"He said that background briefings, which often precede a foreign trip or a policy speech, actually help reporters. 'There is a need for [administration officials] to provide background without attribution,' McClellan said, citing a foreign trip as an example. 'You might be providing context of what another country's views are and they might take exception to doing that on the record.' He also pointed out that 'you probably already have on-the-record comments from the secretary of state or national security advisor.' "

Obviously, reporters are sometimes grateful for these anonymous briefings -- when the alternative is getting no information at all. And undoubtedly, reporters are sometimes too quick to grant anonymity to sources, especially if all they're getting in return is a nasty comment or two.

But in suggesting that there is a tit-for-tat relationship between the official anonymous background briefings and reporters' need to sometimes use anonymous sources, McClellan is either betraying a lack of understanding of modern journalism -- or is being deliberately disingenuous.

As I wrote in my March 18 column , after attending a luminary-filled panel discussion on secrecy, not all anonymous sources are created equal.

The unprecedented secrecy with which the Bush administration operates makes it more imperative than ever for reporters to occasionally grant confidentiality to sources who are taking a risk by exposing information that the public has a right to know.

That's a stark contrast from those maddening White House briefings where a senior administration official stands in front of an auditorium full of reporters, says nothing remotely controversial, and yet insists on being cloaked in anonymity.

From the reporters' perspective, there is really no excuse for the latter.

But Is It Enough?

Strupp's story about the bureau chiefs' stand immediately engendered a slew of posts on journalism blogs, most notably in the letters section of Jim Romenesko's media blog. One major theme: That's not enough.

There are, of course, some other ways to fight background briefings. (See that March column of mine.) Reporters could either individually or collectively boycott them. Or they could name the briefers, either in their own news outlets or to any number of willing bloggers.