1115.org

In a much debated case of an administration official using the Washington Post to anonymously smear Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz writes:

On Sept. 4, the paper cited the “senior Bush official” as saying that as of the day before, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco “still had not declared a state of emergency.” As The Post noted in a correction, Blanco, a Democrat, had declared a state of emergency on Aug. 26.
[…]
Post National Editor Michael Abramowitz calls the incident “a bad mistake” that happened right on deadline. “We all feel bad about that,” he says. “We should not have printed the information as background information, and it should have been checked. We fell down on the desk.”
[…]
Should the paper identify the source who provided bad information? “We don’t blow sources, period, especially if we don’t have reason to believe the source in this case actually lied deliberately,” [Spencer] Hsu says.

I had my say on unnamed sources a few months ago, and nothing I have seen has changed my mind. But Abramowitz’s excuse that a deadline was responsible is pathetic. Deadlines come and go every day, and special care should be given in cases where one side is granted anonymity to criticize the other.

When will the Post and other news organizations pick up on the pattern? The Bush administration (and to a lesser extent, the Clinton administration before them) dumps documents on Friday evening. They make announcements at specific points in the news cycle that aid their goals. How about when Edith Clement was supposed to replace Sandra Day O’Connor? Kurtz and the Post should remember:

Howard Kurtz: I’d never before heard of a midnight embargo — this was, as the Post acknowledged, a White House demand that a story on the decision to turn over many of John Roberts’s government memos be held until that hour, so Democrats and liberals wouldn’t have time to react — and the press should never have gone along with it.

We’re really getting into “Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again” territory. Hsu may not want to “blow” his source, (possible “no homo?”) but what happens now? Certainly at least Hsu and Abramowitz know who the source is, with higher-ups at the Post probably finding out after the rush of criticism. So what now? Will the Post use this source again now that he/she has been proven a liar? Will he/she ever be granted anonymity again on any subject? What steps will the Post take to ensure that nothing like this happens again?

These are important questions as the Post is playing a dangerous game with their credibility.