The Trump administration has revoked the White House press passes for several news outlets.
One reason it has given for doing so is false and funny.
But it also reveals the prevalent sycophancy of mainstream media reporting.
The White House cited anonymous quotes in Politico ban. It was the source. (archived) – Washington Post, Sep 23 2026
The White House told Politico in a letter Tuesday that it had taken the unusual step of revoking its press passes last week because the news organization had violated professional standards, including by using anonymous sources and “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security … and publishing sensitive or classified information.”
…
One of Politico’s six alleged offenses, according to the White House letter, is a June 2026 article that begins by quoting a “senior administration official” who details a push to end the war in Iran.
…
The source in Politico’s story was not speaking against the White House’s wishes, but spoke in an authorized call during which reporters were instructed to attribute information to a “senior administration official.”
The ‘senior administration official’ in the call was Vice President Vance who was claiming that there was a high chance of signing an agreement with Iran. (A few days later a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. The U.S. immediately infringed on it.)
It is understandable that the Trump administration does not like Politico‘s reporting. (I don’t either.) But to accuse it of using anonymous sources while demanding anonymity for what it wants to be put out is highly hypocritical.
My beef however is with the outlets which allow the White House to make ‘anonymous’ media calls.
There is no valid reason to grant anonymity on a White House arranged call with a Vice President who is promoting White House policies. None! At! All!
If the VP wants to be heard, or published about, let him hold an public press conference. Don’t write about him if he doesn’t.
Granting anonymity to a media source should be reserved, solely, for those sources who reveal misdeeds which otherwise would not become public.
Anyone else, especially those who try to sneak self serving partial information, opinions or views into the public while demanding anonymity, should be publicly called out – or at least ignored.
In the early 2000nds the mainstream media were regularly publishing false information about Iraq. By granting anonymity to lying officials they pushed the public opinion towards favoring war on that country.
There followed a wide ranging mea-culpa and discussion of the miss-use of anonymous sources. The NY Times public editor and other media critics often wrote about it:
Just about everybody is in agreement about the use of anonymous sources in news stories. Readers deplore it, public editors shake a finger at it, Times editors and reporters say they try to minimize it. …
There was, for short time period of time, a real effort to avoid anonymous sources.
But the public editor positions are gone. So is the reluctance to let people claim anonymity while they promote official positions.
I hope that Politico, and other media involved in this spiff, will learn from it.
Granting anonymity where its does not belong is pure sycophancy.
It does not pay off.
