Apparently I’m on a tear. This time I’m only mildly slamming the Post.
The Washington Post’s second article today about Jared Kushner is “Senate panel plans to interview Trump son-in-law Kushner in Russia probe.”
Remember how much Trump hates leaks? Let’s walk through the sourcing in the Post article:
The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to interview President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner….
Just a general expectation?
Kushner volunteered to be interviewed by the committee, according to a White House official….
Right.
A Senate source confirmed that the interview was offered….
According to a senior congressional official….
The White House indicated….
It’s not until we’re down around the fifth paragraph that we get the first named source, but that’s just another paper:
According to the New York Times, Kushner met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak….
And now we’re back to leaks, leaks, leaks:
The congressional official was not aware….
A White House official said….
A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee said….
And with that, the article ended. The entire article was leaked; there wasn’t a single named source.
This is goddamn pitiful.
Hey, I have an idea! If we want to shut down ‘leaks’, I bet we could start with “a spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee.” Shouldn’t be too hard to run that guy down, right?
Update: Just for comparison, I looked at the New York Times article about the same story: Senate Committee to Question Jared Kushner Over Meetings with Russians.
They named more of their sources. They start with “…According to administration and congressional officials,” but say the White House Council’s office was officially informed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The Times article listed a bunch of meeting details without a source, but followed it with “A White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, confirmed those meetings.” Ms Hicks went on to explain or confirm more of the story.
And the Times included a justification:
The officials who initially described that Senate inquiry to The New York Times did so on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly about Mr. Trump’s son-in-law.
See? That’s what better sourcing looks like.
