AP:

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a persistent Republican critic of the Iraq war, intends to announce on Monday he will not seek a third term, according to a Republican official.
[...]
The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the event.

We had a discussion in the Comments section a few weeks ago about the ludicrous explanations the media routinely adduces to explain why a source is anonymous.

That discussion was prompted by WaPo offering this explanation in respect of an anonymous source who their own story said had the authority to decide “when and how to disclose the (information)”:

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, …

The AP explanation above may be even more stupid. Whether you pre-empt an event depends on whether you are anonymous or identified, and not what you actually say?

Why don’t they cut out the crap, and just go “The official spoke on condition of anonymity because (insert vacuous reason of choice here)”? That would probably minimize the insult to our intelligence.