Via Atrios, we came across this gem in the NY Times today:

The White House official who briefed reporters on the speech said Mr. Bush would take detailed positions on Social Security in coming weeks and months, but only to the extent that doing so would help Congress move forward. The official, who spoke before an auditorium full of journalists, insisted on not being quoted by name. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said the goal in not allowing the use of the official's name was to keep the focus on Mr. Bush.

Now Fishbowl has never been a fan of the D.C. tradition of background briefings, and we think that Slate's Jack Shafer nailed this issue when he wrote about it last fall: "This is a Washington journalistic institution--and a silly charade. Reporters who assemble at background briefings know who the speaker is, their editors know who the speaker is, and so does anyone who bothers to pick up a phone and make a few calls." So why can't readers know too?

Is it really less distracting for the Times (whose own public editor called the practice "dishonest") to spend a paragraph talking about why they won't name the person than simply for there to be a name attached?

Fishbowl will make the same deal that Shafer made: If you attend a background briefing or sit in on a conference call, email us and we'll see that the information gets conveyed.

Drop us an email, or put it in the "tips" box to the left, if you know who yesterday's briefer was.

Update: SUCCESS! We've confirmed that the subject in question above was Dan Bartlett himself. Now we ask you New York Times et al.: Would it really "distract" from the President's message to have his communications director on record about his speech?

Thanks to everyone who helped out. Keep forwarding us names of other fake anonymous briefers.