politics

Background Noise

April 6, 2004

Regular readers of Campaign Desk know we have a thing about anonymous sources — and some gripes about how new rules that limit their use are being routinely side-stepped.

Today, the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank flips over the rock and lets all of us peek into the subterranean world of those who dish out these juicy tidbits and the reporters who feed on them.

As Milbank reports, the concept of speaking “on background” has been around for a long time, allowing reporters to guarantee anonymity to top-level officials in government in exchange for their candid — and sometimes critical — assessments. Not surprisingly, writes Milbank, “somewhere along the line, administrations learned to turn background backward.” He concludes: “It appears from these sessions that the anonymity is not to protect officials who say something negative — but to shield them from embarrassment for sounding like cheerleaders.”

Best example of late: Just before former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke was to testify before the 9/11 commission blasting the Bush administration’s failures, the White House allowed Fox News to release a 2002 background briefing in which Clarke largely praised the administration’s policies.

Milbank got out his notebook and dug up some other background briefings for reporters that read like press releases. Included is an August 14 backgrounder touting the capture of the terrorist Hambali, in which the words “significant victory” were repeated at least three times. A quick Nexis search reveals that ABC News and CNN must have gotten the message: Both described the capture as (what else?) significant.

Just last Sunday, says Milbank, the White House announced a background briefing to spin the latest employment numbers, in which the anonymous briefer noted they were a confirmation of the administration’s economic policies.

Sign up for CJR's daily email

At the end, a testy reporter asked the anonymous briefer “what possible reason there is why all this isn’t on the record?”

Milbank doesn’t supply the response. We offer one idea: Because it makes life easier for everybody — the tight-lidded White House and a compliant press corps.

–Susan Q. Stranahan

Susan Q. Stranahan wrote for CJR.