Paul Wolfowitz is accustomed to requesting –- and receiving –- anonymity when he wants it. But, as the Des Moines Register reported (not, alas, online, though you can read about it in Slate) that doesn’t work everywhere:
Incognito in Omaha
After Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spoke to the Omaha Chamber of Commerce last Friday, he set aside 45 minutes to talk about the Iraq war with a handful of newspaper reporters from Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri. As is common in Washington, D.C., a Pentagon aide swooped down just before the questions began and explained that Wolfowitz could only be identified as a “senior Defense Department official.”
But this was Omaha, and the Midwest reporters rebelled at the suggested anonymity. They told Wolfowitz such a session was essentially a waste of their time, and besides, it’s customary for public officials in the Midwest to put their name behind their comments. One reporter explained it would look pretty silly if he wrote a story quoting Wolfowitz speaking publicly to the Omaha Chamber, and then in the next paragraph quoted a “senior Defense Department official.” Everybody in Omaha knew Wolfowitz was the only senior defense official in town on Friday.
Wolfowitz, who recently apologized for negative comments he made about reporters covering Iraq, retreated without hesitation and agreed to speak on the record.
(from the Des Moines Register, July 15, in “Insider: Iowa Ear,” a weekly column of inside-baseball political items)
Interestingly, just after a former Register reporter e-mailed me that story, a friend here in Washington sent me his own thoughts about anonymity. Here’s Jim Rosen, a McClatchy Washington bureau reporter:
Since I got to Washington a decade ago, I’ve been amazed that someone like the national security adviser can hold a detailed briefing with dozens of reporters, and they dutifully cite “a senior administration official” because that’s the instruction they get.
Some reporters — and I’ve probably been guilty of this — might feel it gives their work a certain cache to appear to have special access to high-level officials. Of course, the poor reader never knows that it’s a big pretense and that all those other reporters got the same information in a quasi-public setting. It’s a kind of illicit trade: The administration gets deniability, secrecy, and lack of public accountability in exchange for the reporter receiving a false veneer of exclusivity.
Meanwhile, William Babiskin told me his uncle Al used to joke: “They tell us something was said by ‘someone close to the White House.’ For all we know, it’s a wino in Lafayette Park.”
Finally, a colleague at Poynter, Larry Larsen, wrote to note his concern about the NY Times story on the Cheney-replacement rumor, which was absolutely bristling with anonymity. “So much for this,” he said, noting The New York Times’ anonymous sources policy. I agree. Maybe inside, in a standard analyis or political memo format, but on the front page?
The Wilson Affair and the Elusive Truth
A number of my correspondents have noted questions raised in recent government reports about Joe Wilson’s truthfulness. As one of many who wrote about Wilson and his yellowcake uranium report, I’ve gone back at this new information to try to figure out where the facts lie. There’s a lot more heat than light being cast on the subject, but among the more helpful sources I’ve found are Bill Safire’s July 10 column and, in the L.A. Times, a report by Doyle McManus and a piece by Tim Rutten.
There appear to be significant differences between State Department and CIA views, between British and American views and between various readings of the Wilson report, as well as different interpretations as to whether Wilson’s wife “offered up his name” or responded to queries about whether he’d be willing to make his controversial trip. There is plenty here to make those inclined to bristle do so on either side. I can only say that the entirety of it makes me feel less certain of the truth than I was. I thank my readers for challenging me to return to the issue.
