On a week when Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation or Bob Woodward's book were seen ahead of time as the two big stories that would consume media coverage, along came an anonymous source, a senior administration official, to the New York Times with a scathing op-ed on President Trump Donald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE that has Washington and the press (again) aflutter with talk of this being THE moment that changes everything.



Let's first unpack who, at least in general terms, the source of the column is ... a column that includes describing the president’s leadership style as "impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective," among other things that come right out of a Michael Moore script.

ADVERTISEMENT

Note: To the average or even above-average reader outside the Washington-New York bubble, the Times refers to the op-ed as being written by a "senior administration official," which sounds like a cabinet member, or at least someone who interacts with the president on a daily basis. Pretty serious stuff from a high place, right?

Fwiw, based on my experience with NYT sourcing rules for Administration officials, this person could easily be someone most of us have never heard of & more junior than you’d expect. Like a deputy at legislative affairs or NEC. — Jennifer Palmieri (@jmpalmieri) September 6, 2018 Most DC journalists, incl. me, have quoted a "senior administration official" in stories. But I feel as though an op-ed like this should have an editor's note explaining what an SAO is. There are 1,212 Senate-confirmed positions, incl. 640 'key' jobs https://t.co/9WNva10ZOr https://t.co/CySe7znom1 — David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 5, 2018 RE: the NYT anonymous editorial. The federal government always has been honeycombed with officials resistant to this and all GOP administrations. They are government workers and nearly all Democrats. And don't be misled by the words "senior officials." There are loads of them. — Brit Hume (@brithume) September 5, 2018

No matter: We're already seeing some in the media go the full Alex Jones in attempting to figure out — with zero basis whatsoever — who the anonymous writer may be, with the most egregious being CNN political editor-at-large Chris Cillizza.

In listing 12 names of people with "motive," in Cillizza's latest CNN.com piece, the only thing missing is that the writer was Mrs. Peacock in the kitchen with the candlestick or Mr. Green in the library with the lead pipe.



12 senior Trump administration officials with motive to write The New York Times op-ed | Analysis by @CillizzaCNN https://t.co/7Q2WvZHWEd pic.twitter.com/IbuQtd9clr — CNN International (@cnni) September 6, 2018

So here's the question: Should the Times have narrowed down the actual governmental level of the writer in a way that at least tells the reader if this person was indeed as close to the president as they portray, unintentionally or otherwise? That doesn't, of course, mean giving away obvious clues that would reveal identify. But, as the Post's Nakamura asks, does this person actually work in the White House? The National Security Council? A federal agency? On domestic or foreign affairs?



As the Post's Dana Milbank pointed out years ago: "The only people who can’t be senior administration officials are the interns."



Narrowing down the writer's role in the administration to at least a place or department is a fair ask of the Times, which clearly reaps benefits from the ambiguity of "senior administration official." But such ambiguity leads to the kind of dangerous speculation so many see from some quarters of the media on a daily basis, which only leads to increased cynicism about the institution. So here's the question: Should the Times have narrowed down the actual governmental level of the writer in a way that at least tells the reader if this person was indeed as close to the president as they portray, unintentionally or otherwise? That doesn't, of course, mean giving away obvious clues that would reveal identify. But, as the Post's Nakamura asks, does this person actually work in the White House? The National Security Council? A federal agency? On domestic or foreign affairs?As the Post's Dana Milbank pointed out years ago: "The only people who can’t be senior administration officials are the interns."Narrowing down the writer's role in the administration to at least a place or department is a fair ask of the Times, which clearly reaps benefits from the ambiguity of "senior administration official." But such ambiguity leads to the kind of dangerous speculation so many see from some quarters of the media on a daily basis, which only leads to increased cynicism about the institution.

Another note regarding one more small but telling error by the Times: In one tweet from its official Twitter handle, the paper appears to have revealed the gender of the anonymous source, as noted by Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs:

NYT tweet suggests the anonymous senior admin official is a man -- "he."



The official complains Trump "engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions." https://t.co/HsNLRTCK5d pic.twitter.com/6GRD4Lbdbn — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) September 5, 2018

And, in a related story, Jacobs reports that several sources tell her "they have doubts the anonymous senior administration official works in the West Wing."



Several sources now saying they have doubts the anonymous senior admin official works in the West Wing — more probably works elsewhere, in one of the departments. @KellyannePolls on Fox says “hundreds of folks that would qualify for that title alone.” — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) September 6, 2018



If true, that's a pretty big deal. And if that is indeed the case, the person behind the op-ed shows his (or her) hand in terms of access, or lack thereof, he (or she) had to the president:



"Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back," the writer claims.



Yet, instead of providing personal examples to support this claim, the writer pivots to what he only heard from another unnamed official. In other words, he wasn't in the room, didn't attend the meeting and maybe hasn't attended any. And, in a related story, Jacobs reports that several sources tell her "they have doubts the anonymous senior administration official works in the West Wing."If true, that's a pretty big deal. And if that is indeed the case, the person behind the op-ed shows his (or her) hand in terms of access, or lack thereof, he (or she) had to the president:"Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back," the writer claims.Yet, instead of providing personal examples to support this claim, the writer pivots to what he only heard from another unnamed official. In other words, he wasn't in the room, didn't attend the meeting and maybe hasn't attended any.