Over at National Journal, Emily Schultheis reports on a problem that’s been bedeviling those who are closely tied to the proto-campaign of former secretary of state and presumed presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton: the bewildering welter of sources and commenters who show up in news reports, using the veil of anonymity to pass themselves off as bona fide “Clintonland” insiders. Schultheis notes that Clinton is basically cursed by her long history in politics and in Washington, since there’s now virtually no end to the number of people who can semi-credibly claim to be “familiar with her thinking” or have “deep knowledge of the Clinton campaign,” or who are simply “Clinton allies.”
All of which has created a mess for the people who are really running the show. Per Schultheis:
“There are three parties to this equation: We’re one, the source is two, and the media is three. And arguably we have the least amount of influence on any of this,” said longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines. He conceded, though, that there’s no real way for her team to control it. “We just have to sit back. We just have to grin and bear it.”
The issue is singularly frustrating for people who work and have worked in Clinton’s press operation and dealt with the issue first-hand — enough so that several of whom, like Reines, were willing to give rare on-the-record interviews for this story.
That Schultheis actually got these on-the-record interviews is itself significant — it means she’s done the virtuous work of ensuring that her readers know who is opining on this matter. The whole episode raises an interesting question: Sure, this is a mess for the Clinton campaign, but… should it really be their mess? Isn’t the onus on the actual reporter to ensure that the people they quote, the people speaking for, to, and about Hillary Clinton — about anyone or anything, really! — are in fact legit? Wouldn’t there be less of a mess if journalists simply exercised some judgment about whom they allow a platform?
–
“What Ryan said,” said one veteran political reporter and published author who requested anonymity and then also requested that he be allowed to identify one of the other anonymous sources in this piece by their first name, only to then disappear from the piece entirely, leaving behind a tantalizing but ultimately unsolvable mystery.
Schultheis’ article seems to come down on the side of the Clinton camp, depicting this as a problem they can’t solve on their own. Of course, one can’t dismiss the possibility that Schultheis has penned a good old-fashioned “beat sweetener,” siding with Clinton’s real inner camp on this issue to smooth the way for future reporting. And so the rabbit hole continues.
Ultimately, the problem may be even more profound. “The real issue here is that no one knows the real Hillary,” said one insider who requested anonymity because she couldn’t prove she knew the real Hillary.
Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?
