It’s a very serious matter when an elected official attacks the press — except for when it isn’t.

That’s the takeaway this week following Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., criticism of a Politico report titled, “ Ocasio-Cortez weighs a new primary target: Hakeem Jeffries.”

“One disappointment about DC is the gossip that masquerades as ‘reporting.’ This story has: Not a SINGLE named or verifiable source. Only ONE on-the-record comment, which is a denial,” her social media team tweeted Tuesday. “My dad had a name for junk articles like this: ‘Birdcage lining.’”

She added, “For the record, this is the second [Politico] article about me in a short period of time with *0* named sources to back claims containing false information. Their articles are printed [and] distributed to Congressional offices — w/ no named sources. It’s really unfortunate.”

I agree! A lot of what passes today for hard-hitting political journalism is trash. At best, it’s anonymously sourced gossip of no real consequence ( thanks, Mark Halperin). At worst, it’s just flat wrong. But this article isn’t about what Ocasio-Cortez said. Rather, it’s about what others have not said.

Do you know who else hates anonymously sourced news stories? The president of the United States. Like Ocasio-Cortez, President Trump rails against entire newsrooms for publishing unflattering or damaging reports based on the say-so of nameless persons. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Trump accuses the press of indulging in lowbrow, gutter journalism. Like Ocasio-Cortez, Trump has championed the idea that journalists should be “ required to cite a source.” Trump calls it “fake news." Ocasio-Cortez calls it “birdcage lining.” Their respective approaches to negative or unwanted news coverage are identical in practically every way.

The only real difference is in how the press reacts.

Ocasio-Cortez’s media criticisms have inspired nothing harsher than the occasional reporter's tweet warning that she sounds a bit like Trump. One of her attacks even prompted a gentle explainer from a news editor. Trump’s criticisms, on the other hand, regularly spark days-long news cycles featuring somber-faced anchors and commentators lamenting the death of political norms and freedom and goodness. The difference in reactions is as comical as it is absurd. You won’t see CNN’s Chris Cuomo equate Ocasio-Cortez’s use of “birdcage lining” to the N-word. There have been no attempts to draw a line connecting “birdcage lining” to Adolf Hitler’s attacks against the press. Editorial boards have not banded together to stand so bravely against the incoming congresswoman’s “ attacks on the press.”

Granted, the congresswoman is not the president of the United States, so reporters are bound to react differently. But she is not a nonentity either. She is, after all, a "rock star," a “rising star,” and a "political star," as any number of national newsrooms will happily tell you. It comes as something of a surprise, then, to see that her attacks on newsrooms earn only a mild sniffle from the usually aggrieved members of the press.

What, no full-throated denunciations of these unprecedented attacks on the free press? No Hitler comparisons? No pundits to accuse her of emboldening tyrants? Where did everyone go?

I don’t know about you, but when it comes to elected officials attacking the press, I’m starting to think that reporters care more about the messenger than the message.