Buried in the middle of Howard Kurtz' Media Notes column today is this line:

Palin has been one of America's most polarizing politicians almost from the day John McCain tapped her as his running mate. Some of the early criticism about whether she could handle five kids and the vice presidency was sexist; the campaign largely shielded her from the press, except for a couple of less-than-successful TV interviews, and when it was over, journalists shamefully quoted unnamed McCain aides as calling her a head case.

Kurtz never explains what was “shameful” about journalists quoting unnamed McCain aides criticizing Palin. Surely Kurtz doesn't mean that anonymous quotes are inherently “shameful.” And in this case, the anonymous quotes aren't the kind of completely anonymous comments that give the reader no ability to assess their credibility: we know they came from McCain campaign aides. And this isn't a situation in which reporters have granted operatives of one party anonymity for the purposes of attacking the other party, or in order to praise their own leaders. That's an absurd use of anonymous quotes, though one that is quite common. So what's “shameful” about quoting McCain-Palin campaign aides criticizing Palin? It would be nice if Kurtz told us, but he doesn't; he just engages in what amounts to name-calling. Is he just trying to curry favor with Palin and her supporters?