Scott Reid: A Source?

I was going to post this yesterday but I worried about potential lawsuites. Today, I am less worried so I'm going to post it.

The readers of this blog know my absolute distaste for cowards who hide behind anonymous quotes. In fact, there is no one worse than the PMO when it comes to giving anonymous sources. And there is no one worse than than the Globe when it come to using them.

So yesterday the Globe reported:

A source in the Prime Minister's Office said Mr. Martin was careful in his choice, but "we do not live in Stalinist Russia and we are not going to make people crawl on their bellies and demonstrate their loyalty to Canada."

The source added: "We do not select the Governor General using a scratch-and-win card."

First of all: this must be one of the most silly ways you can hide a source. A source in the PMO, talking to reporters.. let's see.. that could be all of 5, maybe 7, people? This is not DC where a source in the "administration" can be anyone in a group of almost 100 people.

Second, Scott Reid is the wittiest person in the PMO so the scratch and win comment could only be his. The Russia comment was only icing on the cake.

Now, today the Post had this:

"Understand this: The governor-general is not selected from a scratch-and-win ticket," added Mr. Reid.

Is there any reason why Reid would float the quote to the Globe anonymously while allowing it to be sourced in the Post? Hmmmm.. we must ask:

1. Was it Reid who decided to hide behind anonymous source to bash the Tories and sell the "Harper got told not to go in bed with hardline Quebec nationalists" line? If so, why was the Globe so willing to accept that spin while shielding the PMO from having to stand by their spin?

or

2. Did Reid not care if he was quoted and the Globe did so just so it would sound "more in the know"?

Now, I may be wrong about Reid being the source for both quotes but at the very least both people are reading from the same talking points.. why can't they be quoted? The same questions need to be asked.

Like I said before reporters MUST start putting an end to this anonymous sourcing and talking "on background." At least they should end it when it comes to clear, obvious, and partisan spin.