I read it twice but I still don't understand Joe Strupp's story, particularly the part about the big bureau chiefs pleading with the White House press secretary. "Those in attendance said they asked McClellan to end the background-only briefings, citing a need to have more openness in their reporting." Odd. Why does the press have to ask McClellan to end these stealth briefings, when it could end its own participation at any time? The method for doing so isn't complicated:
PODIUM: Don't forget, background briefing at 11 am, previewing the
President's remarks with a nameless deputy press officer
REPORTER 1. Great, that will give me time to answer my e-mail.
REPORTER 2: Scott, when does the working part of the day resume?
That would be ideal, but let me add a couple of other suggestions. First, if anonymous background briefings are here to stay, then the press can legitimize them to some degree by adopting one new standard of behavior -- if the background briefer later contradicts publicly something said at the briefing, the anonymity is gone.
And, second, back to Jack Shafer's longstanding suggestion -- just leak the damn names to pesky bloggers like me. Most newspaper readers will lack the relevant information, but those who care to know can find out.
As ridiculous as they are, the anonymous background briefings aren't the real problem - it's the Judith Miller pressjob, in which reporters dutifully report administration official pronouncements as newsworthy, whether or not they contain any truth, believing their job is "not to collect information and analyze it independently."