{"id":1425,"date":"2004-03-31T17:16:02","date_gmt":"2004-03-31T22:16:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/000af36.netsolhost.com\/wordpress1\/2004\/03\/31\/post_sources_re\/"},"modified":"2004-03-31T17:16:02","modified_gmt":"2004-03-31T22:16:02","slug":"post_sources_re","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/2004\/03\/31\/post_sources_re\/","title":{"rendered":"Post Sources"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recalling that The Washington Post has new new guidelines<\/a> regarding the use of anonymous sources, we have these two examples from today\u2019s paper:<\/p>\n

In the lead story<\/a> about Bush\u2019s decision to allow national security advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify, we have this: “‘The president’s aides finally realized that the most important element of this president retaining power was for him to remain president,’ said the political adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Bush’s inner circle does not like to discuss deliberations.”<\/p>\n

What\u2019s next \u201c\u2026who spoke on condition of anonymity because they don\u2019t like to talk to reporters\u201d? I suppose the quote is supposed to be sarcastic: \u201c\u2026the most important element of this president retaining power was for him to remain president.\u201d So the source is suggesting that Rice not testifying would have meant the end to the Bush presidency? Neither the aides nor the source look all that smart to me, and I\u2019m not sure the quote adds much but sarcasm.<\/p>\n

Then in the story<\/a> about Bush\u2019s negative ads, we have: “‘I don’t think [Kerry’s] personal campaigning skills are anywhere near President Clinton’s, and second, you had the factor there in Ross Perot that was eating away at Bush’s base and weakening him,’ said this adviser, who asked for anonymity as a condition of discussing Bush’s strategy more freely.”<\/p>\n

Again, if that\u2019s OK, what\u2019s to stop a source from disparaging someone anonymously under the \u201ccondition of discussing Bush’s strategy more freely.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure what these new guidelines are supposed to accomplish.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recalling that The Washington Post has new new guidelines regarding the use of anonymous sources, we have these two examples from today\u2019s paper: In the lead story about Bush\u2019s decision to allow national security advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify, we have this: “‘The president’s aides finally realized that the most important element of this president… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1425"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/griendling.com\/wordpress1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}