Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz has a good idea: Political reporters should stop letting sources who refuse to go on the record throw mud at political opponents.
Is it really necessary to allow operatives from one campaign to attack another candidate without their names attached? These strategists are paid to slam the other contenders. Why should they be able to hide behind a curtain of anonymity? Do you really want to be aiding and abetting that sort of cheap-shot politics? …
Political reporters, as a rule, are an industrious band of road warriors who work hard to get people to speak on the record. But under deadline pressure, they sometimes succumb to the lure of the juicy quote dished out by operatives trying to damage rival candidates. Perhaps it's time to rethink the practice.
While the Globe and Mail feasts on anonymous political “advisers”.
And things haven't changed:
“Despite the compromise between Europe and the U.S., some aspects of the agreement were not yet finalized, and insiders warned the situation was still volatile. They cautioned the agreement could still fall apart at the final session, which began this morning.”
Mark
Ottawa