Unnamed Sources

Note: This post was meant to be prepared for yesterday, but wedding planning imposes its own deadlines, it seems.

In an article today on the geopolitical morass in which George W. Bush finds his presidency and his presidential doctrines, Washington Post reporter Peter Baker points to the following as evidence of the President's troubles:

At this point, though, democracy promotion has become so identified with an unpopular president that candidates running to succeed him are running away from it. At a recent debate, they rushed to disavow it. "I'm not a carbon copy of President Bush," one said. Another ventured that "maybe going to elections so quickly is a mistake." A third, asked if he agreed with Bush's vision, replied, "Absolutely not, because I don't think we can force people to accept our way of life, our way of government."

And those were the Republicans.

Emphasis mine.

Baker makes a couple of things clear in this passage. The first is that, undoubtedly, he refers to current presidential candidates, known here as "candidates running to succeed him [George W. Bush]." The next item made clear is that the venue where those comments were made, wherein the aforementioned candidates distanced themselves from the President, was nothing less than a "recent debate." What debate other than among hopefuls of the 2008 presidential field would serve as the source for three separate remarks from three different "candidates running to succeed" George W. Bush? The last point Baker makes certain is that these are Republican candidates: "And those were the Republicans."

I am left slack-jawed and confused by the obvious: Why doesn't Baker name the Republican presidential candidates who made these statements at a recent Republican debate? Does he take if for granted that we already know? Were the comments made by second- or third- tier candidates who, by his estimate, don't merit attribution? Is Baker or the WaPo trying not to give Ron Paul any more press attention? Worse yet, were these statements made by top contenders, and the newspaper is for some reason diverting attention away? What is going on?

While not exactly reading like "Sources close to the White House . . . " or "Sources inside the Republican party . . . ," this example turns a bright light on the recent trend in print media of not naming names. I think in this benign situation there must be a reasonable explanation, yet I am troubled by the ease with which Baker omits this information. Has the media become so used to not identifying sources who make unfavorable comments about the White House that this will go unnoticed?

In fairness, I've been out of the country all summer. Maybe there's some background I missed. Please, somebody--help me understand what's going on.