White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki found herself in an embarrassing situation when she was called out over her hypocrisy in anonymous sources. She uses them frequently, in fact so frequently that you have to wonder if she is just making it up as she seems to have done in the past. But, she refuses to accept anonymous sources that do not agree with her ideology.
The problem came to a head over accusations that Kamala Harris’s office has become a toxic workplace. Some people absolutely hate their job but can’t afford to quit or get fired for talking openly. Psaki says that type of anonymous source is not fitting but her use of anonymous sources is on providing details on a policy announcement to reporters to provide information and answer media questions. say what? Why would someone talking about policy need to be anonymous?
Politico recently reported:
“Harris’ team is experiencing low morale, porous lines of communication, and diminished trust among aides and senior officials. In interviews, 22 current and former vice presidential aides, administration officials, and associates of Harris and Biden described a tense and at times dour office atmosphere.”
Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked Psaki whether the White House is concerned about the allegations of an “abusive environment” in Harris’ office.
Psaki replied:
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources.
“I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources,” says @PressSec Jen Psaki, whose team regularly organizes anonymous briefings on topics in the news. https://t.co/wmPMxEp5ps
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) July 2, 2021
The story was from a leftwing site, who would have no reason to lie or fabricate a story. Furthermore, reporters from the New York Times, Bloomberg, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico questioned her reasoning.
New York Times’ Peter Baker: “Point taken. And this is true with every White House. But with all respect, why should ‘providing details on a policy announcement’ be done anonymously in a transparent and open democratic society?”
Bloomberg’s Gregory Korte: “Arguably granting anonymity to people who could lose their jobs for talking to the press is more defensible than anonymity for people whose *job* it is to speak to the press. Speaking ‘on background’ about administration policy is a weird D.C. practice I’ve never understood.”
Politico’s Nahal Toosi: “Actually, shouldn’t you have even less of a reason to be anonymous if you’re simply ‘providing details on a policy announcement…’?”
Los Angeles Times’ Molly O’Toole: “Everyone doesn’t know the difference between these ex of anonymity, because there isn’t one: Both are abuses of anonymity, which should be rare & reserved for serious risk of physical or prof harm (for whistleblowers, not politics). Attacks & answering media questions(?!) not valid.”
Even people who agree with her politics think her explanation is laughable.
