Kurtz: Fellow Wash. Post reporter's anonymous quote of White House official praising Bush "probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity"

Summary: In a washingtonpost.com discussion, Howard Kurtz said that a Washington Post reporter's grant of anonymity to a "senior White House official" -- who expressed the belief that there are "a number of things that will get done" in the remainder of President Bush's term in office -- "probably wasn't worth" it.

In a May 6 online discussion at washingtonpost.com, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz said that a Post reporter's grant of anonymity to a "senior White House official" -- who expressed the belief that there are "a number of things that will get done" in the remainder of President Bush's term in office -- "probably wasn't worth" it. As Media Matters for America noted, in a May 3 Washington Post article, headlined "For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle," discussing President Bush's plans for his last year in office, staff writer Dan Eggen wrote that "Bush and his aides say his difficulties have been overstated" and quoted "a senior White House official" saying, "Don't ever underestimate the leverage of the presidency. ... Many of us here still believe there are a number of things that will get done." Eggen wrote that the official "requested anonymity in order to speak candidly." During the May 6 discussion, Kurtz was asked by a reader identified as "Hong Kong": "Why do Post journalists give anonymity for even such motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments as expressed above?" Kurtz responded, "I had the exact same question when I read that. The short answer is because most White House aides won't speak on the record. It's one thing if an aide is being more candid than he can be on the record, revealing inside information or even deigning to criticize the boss. But that one probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity."

From the May 6 washingtonpost.com online discussion with Kurtz:

Hong Kong: In Dan Eggen's piece on the White House on Sunday [sic: Saturday] he said: " 'Don't ever underestimate the leverage of the presidency,' said a senior White House official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. 'Many of us here still believe there are a number of things that will get done.' " Why do Post journalists give anonymity for even such motherhood-and-apple-pie sentiments as expressed above?

Howard Kurtz: I had the exact same question when I read that. The short answer is because most White House aides won't speak on the record. It's one thing if an aide is being more candid than he can be on the record, revealing inside information or even deigning to criticize the boss. But that one probably wasn't worth a grant of anonymity.

—R.S.K.