The Prince of Darkness feels used. An operative with John McCain's campaign fed Bob Novak a story that the naming of a running mate was imminent. Expect an official annoucement soon! The columnist, a Washington insider, did what he was supposed to do. He publicized the leak.

The "news" excited the blogosphere (not a difficult feat, we concede); it gained McCain some modest attention while Barack Obama was dominating the headlines with his Elvis-like tour of war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The story may have been a "dodge," as Novak subsequently said. The McCain camp (or someone in the camp) merely wanted to spark a little speculation, to steal a little space. Novak acted the useful fool.

This is what happens when journalists not only report news or comment on it but actively participate in making it. One way to ensure authenticity and accountability is to insist on attribution. The McCain-veep scoop did not involve national security; the info did not come from a whistleblower whose identity needed protection. A report that could not specify, "Ebenezer O'Brandenburg, spokesman for John McCain, said the presumptive GOP presidential nominee intends to announce his running mate this week," was a report that should not have been posted. It is possible a veep announcement could come sooner rather than later but the chatter of recent days was part of an agenda the press willingly promoted.

Novak is not the only one to succumb to petty flatteries. CNN also cited McCain sources in reporting the veepstakes buzz. In Washington such practices appear almost universal. Wags have cracked that requiring "informed sources" to reveal themselves effectively would impose a news blackout on the nation's capital. It is amusing, nevertheless, to see a hard-headed veteran of the nomenklatura express distaste that professionals consider him a dupe.