White House Press Secretary got pissy with reporters today when asked about the “abusive environment” in the Vice President’s office as reported by Axios, saying “I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources”:
Press Secretary Psaki deflects on question regarding alleged "abusive environment" of Vice Presidential staffers: "I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources." pic.twitter.com/RELZS48D5V
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 2, 2021
And that’s when Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs stepped in and dropped Psaki on her head.
“‘I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,’ says @PressSec Jen Psaki, whose team regularly organizes anonymous briefings on topics in the news”:
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,” says @PressSec Jen Psaki, whose team regularly organizes anonymous briefings on topics in the news. https://t.co/wmPMxEp5ps
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) July 2, 2021
OUCH!
But Psaki responded, ending up making it much, much worse.
“I think everyone knows the difference between attacking someone as an anonymous source and providing details on a policy announcement to reporters in an effort to provide information and answer media questions”:
I think everyone knows the difference between attacking someone as an anonymous source and providing details on a policy announcement to reporters in an effort to provide information and answer media questions
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) July 2, 2021
Other reporters then joined the pile-on, questioning why the White House officials would need anonymity to discuss “details on a policy announcement.
From the NYT’s Peter Baker:
Point taken. And this is true with every White House. But with all respect, why should "providing details on a policy announcement" be done anonymously in a transparent and open democratic society?
— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) July 2, 2021
And Politico’s Nahal Toosi said this is “even less of a reason to be anonymous”:
Actually, shouldn’t you have even less of a reason to be anonymous if you’re simply “providing details on a policy announcement…”? https://t.co/kLwp5jHD4g
— Nahal Toosi (@nahaltoosi) July 2, 2021
Anonymity “should be rare & reserved for serious risk of physical or prof harm,” added the LA Times’ Mooly O’Toole:
Everyone doesn't know difference between these ex of anonymity, because there isn't one: Both are abuses of anonymity, which should be rare & reserved for serious risk of physical or prof harm (for whistleblowers, not politics). Attacks & answering media questions(?!) not valid. https://t.co/ZdgKsgwGKc
— Molly O'Toole (@mollymotoole) July 2, 2021
Business Insider’s John Haltiwanger threw it right back at Psaki, asking her “why not go on record during these briefings?”:
Then why not go on record during these briefings? https://t.co/PKUClfi94Y
— John Haltiwanger (@jchaltiwanger) July 2, 2021
And Bloomberg’s Gregory Korte says “speaking ‘on background’ about administration policy is a weird D.C. practice I’ve never understood”:
Arguably granting anonymity to people who could lose their jobs for talking to the press is more defensible than anonymity for people whose *job* it is to speak to the press.
Speaking "on background" about administration policy is a weird D.C. practice I've never understood. https://t.co/p9NWiF38wj
— Gregory Korte (@gregorykorte) July 2, 2021
Well, these are all great points. Now, why don’t you all band together and do something about it instead of just acting as stenographers for the White House?
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member