It's press corps vs. press handlers (again!) -- plus a "Loop" contest update and reminder

by Ken

The lead item in today's Washington Post "In the Loop" column begins by referring back to "a recent play-by-play" by Politico's Dylan Byers, "illustrating the cat-and-mouse games the White House plays with the press," so I thought we would start with the Dylan Byers post, from last week, called "The most transparent administration, cont.":

A quick look at how the sausage gets made, or doesn't...

On Tuesday night, The New York Times reported that no reporters would be traveling with First Lady Michelle Obama to China, and that she would be giving no interviews while there. Nicholas Kristof, the Times columnist, called the First Lady's decision "a mistake," and said it "signals weakness or fear of coverage." Several conservative outlets picked up the Times report, including the influential Drudge Report, which linked to a Weekly Standard article about it.

Shortly after noon on Wednesday, I reached out to the First Lady's office to inquire about the decision. A spokesperson for the First Lady responded to my inquiry but declared the response "off the record," meaning I wasn't allowed to use the information therein. When I told the spokesperson that I needed a response I could use, the spokesperson replied with another off-the-record statement regarding the First Lady's trip.

The spokesperson then wrote, "If you need something attributable, you can take this on background from a White House official..."

The statement that followed did not address my original inquiry. Instead, it offered a formulaic explanation about "the power and importance of education" and "reaching people," followed by an explanation that the First Lady would participate in open press events and take questions online and in forums.

By now it was 5 p.m. ET, nearly five hours after my initial inquiry. When I told the spokesperson that I did not see why the quote needed to be anonymous and attributed to "a White House official," the spokesperson said if I needed something on the record I could refer to the First Lady's travel guidance and a transcript of a press call regarding the trip. These documents did not contain an answer to my question regarding why no reporters would be traveling with the First Lady.

Now, I'll leave frustration over Michelle Obama's trip to The New York Times, Nick Krisfof, The Weekly Standard and Drudge Report (a motley crew right there). What I want to know -- and what I've wanted to know since last October -- is why the spokesperson in the First Lady's office didn't want to give me a name I could put on a harmless, formulaic quote?

Actually, I think the October post to which Dylan B refers back is worth looking at too, to understand better the kind of thing he's complaining about. It was called "The problem with Washington:"

The following email just landed in reporters' inboxes:

FROM A WH OFFICIAL: Today, the President and the Vice President will meet with the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Leadership (Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi) at the White House at 3:00 pm. With only a few days until the government runs out of borrowing authority, the President will make clear the need for Congress to act to pay our bills, and reopen the government.  The President will also reiterate our principles to the leaders: we will not pay a ransom for Congress reopening the government and raising the debt limit. The President continues to urge Congress to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling and lends the certainty our businesses and the economy needs.

Why does an official White House statement sent to every media outlet in the Beltway and beyond need to be attributed to an anonymous official? Can't someone put their name on it? Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, is probably going to reiterate these exact same points at the daily press briefing. Can't he sign off on them now?

We can debate anonymous sourcing to the ground -- I'll defend it, in many instances -- but we're hitting rock bottom when the White House can't even put a signature on a statement about its principles.

Now back to today's "In the Loop" follow-up to Dylan's post from last week. In the wake of that post, we're told, "frustrated reporters took to Twitter recounting their favorite response lines from administration officials with the hashtag #TweetYourAnonymousFlackQuotes."

This friction is, of course, nothing new. Past White Houses and government agencies have certainly been evasive. But judging from the frequent complaints we hear, the lack of transparency is worse than ever.

Our colleagues have found that a number of truly unhelpful responses have become standard at many agencies. Now, as a Loop public service, we include some of the most common -- and egregious -- examples (with some suggested reporter responses).

1. "Why is this a story?" (Because I say it is.)

2. "Who told you that?" (A person who sits in your building.)

3. "Where did you get that?" (From the e-mail you sent out to your colleagues this morning.)

4. "That's not accurate." (And what exactly is not accurate?)

5. "You're way off base." (Am I?)

6. "I have nothing for you on that." (So, "No comment?")

7. "You'll have to contact [another agency, which happens to be in the midst of an ‘all hands' conference in Vegas]." (I did. They told me to call you.)

8. "So, what's the question?" (Repeat the same question.)

9. "No comment." (Thanks -- that's helpful.)

10. "Who are you? Politico?" [In other words, insulting a fine news organization by implying you're asking a trivial question.] (Defend Politico and/or ignore and repeat the same question.)

11. "Off the record, no comment." [Most people not in the business intend this to mean "Don't use my name" or "on background," or "Don't use my name or agency," meaning "deep background." The beauty of this one is that you can't use the "no comment."] (Just say the agency "declined to comment.")

12. Their final tactic, when they realize their efforts to stop the story have failed: "We are going to point out that this is wrong." (Go ahead. Then you'll be lying to a lot more people than me.)

13. Then: "!@#$&*." (Hang up.)

GOOD NEWS FOR "LOOP" FANS

It may just be my crazy impression, but in recent years it has seemed as if the editors of the Washington Post have been doing everything they could think of to marginalize and hide the "In the Loop" column overseen by our pal (event though we've never met or communicated) Al Kamen. Which has been all the more strange in that all evidence has indicated that it's one of the paper's most unequivocally loved features. Today's column however, was preceded by this "editor's note":

In the Loop resumes its four-day a week print schedule, publishing Tuesday through Friday. We're stepping up the pace with the help of our new colleague Colby Itkowitz, formerly the Washington correspondent for the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., and transportation reporter for Congressional Quarterly.

Indeed the column is now running under the joint byline "by Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz."


"IN THE LOOP" CONTEST UPDATE AND REMINDER

I've already passed on tidings of one pending "Loop" contest, the "Loop Obamacare Enrollment Contest," which closes at noon this Friday, the 28th: "Simply guess the number of first-year sign-ups" by the no-penalty sign-up deadline on March 31. The 10 closest entries get both a coveted (by me, anyway) "In the Loop" T-shirt "and lifetime bragging rights." Follow the same entry procedures as for the other contest, below, but use the subject line "Obamacare." (And, again, "Those in the administration or on the Hill may enter 'on background.' ")

As to that other "Loop" contest, of which I haven't yet spread word, here's today's recap:

It takes a contest?

Hillary Clinton told a publishers group in New York last week that she still hadn't come up with a title for her forthcoming memoir and turned to the Loop for guidance.

"Helpfully, about a year ago, The Washington Post asked readers to send in suggestions," she said. “For example, one possibility was 'It Takes a World,' a fitting sequel to 'It Takes a Village.' Another plays off my love of all things Tina Fey: 'Bossy Pantsuit,' although we can no longer say one of those words."

She continued: " 'The Scrunchie Chronicles: 112 Countries and It's Still All About My Hair.' That actually is a keeper -- that's on the shortlist."

But she's still stumped. So we're relaunching the contest! Send suggestions to intheloop@
washpost.com with the subject line "Hillarycontest." The top five winners will receive a highly coveted "In the Loop" T-shirt.

Please provide your name, profession, mailing address and T-shirt size (M, L or XL). Also include a phone number. Deadline is April 4. Good luck!

#