Almost Too Rich For Words

ViaInsta, FishBowlDC cites concerns about internal debates being leaked to the public--at the Washington Post:

"I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other," the Post's Jonathan Yardley writes.

Hey pal, the Justice Department knows just how you feel.

Update: Oh, it gets better. Yardley objects to being quoted in the internal colloquy by a NYT reporter. Then this:

Glenn Kessler: I think it is outrageous that someone gave Yardley's comments to the New York Times. If this person had the courage of their convictions, he/she would have allowed themselves to be quoted on the record to The Times (why hide behind Yardley's private comments if you believe them to be correct?) and he/she should have no qualms about revealing themselves as the source.

I view this chatboard as the written equivalent of conversations around the water cooler. How many people would we quote thirdhand in the newspaper unless we got those quotes confirmed from the source? Granted, in this case, the comments were written, which allowed the Times to decide they had enough confirmation to use the comments even though Yardley refused to talk about them. But that fact gives every one of us an even greater obligation to keep this chatter among ourselves....

Tell it to the CIA, bub! The Times and FishBowlDC are just describing how the Post thinks it's covering the news. So when Yardley says Bob Woodward has become "larger than the institution itself," people can read it and decide whether that's good or bad.

Update: Linked to Wizbang's generous Carnival of Trackbacks