On Friday, mainstream media reporters confronted White House press secretary Jen Psaki after she evaded questions on Vice President Kamala Harris’ claimed “abusive environment.”
Following many stories alleging a poisonous environment in her West Wing office, Harris has been the subject of increased investigation in recent weeks.
According to Politico:
“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.”
It came after Harris took heat for failing her responsibility to take charge of the border crisis. Despite President Joe Biden tasked Harris with heading the administration’s response to the crisis, Harris did not visit the US-Mexico border for three months. Even then, Harris only went to El Paso, a place hundreds of miles away from the issue’ epicenter.
Fox News reporter Peter Doocy questioned Psaki if the White House is concerned about the reports of a “abusive environment” in Harris’ office during Friday’s press briefing.
Psaki said, in a response, “I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources.”
But, as per Bloomberg News writer Jennifer Jacobs, that’s not actually true. Psaki, according to Jacobs, who covers the White House, engages in “anonymous briefings” on a regular basis.
Jacobs stated, “‘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.”
Psaki claims a distinction between her anonymous briefings and anonymous White House staffers’ descriptions of Harris’ alleged “abusive environment.” as a response.
“I think everyone knows the difference between attacking someone as an anonymous source and providing details on a policy announcement to reporters in an effort to provide information and answer media questions,” Psaki said.
“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
But,
According to New York Times, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, and Politico reporters:
-
- 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?”
I think everyone knows the difference between attacking someone as an anonymous source and providing details on a policy announcement to reporters in an effort to provide information and answer media questions
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) July 2, 2021
-
- 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.”
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. https://t.co/p9NWiF38wj
— Gregory Korte (@gregorykorte) July 2, 2021
-
- 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…’?”
Actually, shouldn’t you have even less of a reason to be anonymous if you’re simply “providing details on a policy announcement…”? https://t.co/kLwp5jHD4g
— Nahal Toosi (@nahaltoosi) July 2, 2021
-
- Los Angeles Times’ Molly O’Toole: “Everyone doesn’t know 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.”
Everyone doesn’t know 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. https://t.co/ZdgKsgwGKc
— Molly O’Toole (@mollymotoole) July 2, 2021
dan