On The Record and Off
Here's a debate between yours truly and the local chair of the Society for Professional Journalists as to what are the "rights" of politicians to be off the record in the digital age.
As a teaser, here's the question thrown me that spurred the exchange:
Marc
Extremely troubled by Mayhill Flowers' item about Clinton's indiscreet ropeline comments in the HuffPo. Did he know she was a journalist? Did he know he was on the record? Did he know he was being recorded? Seems to me that fair play dictates he should have been told - or are politicos no longer entitled to the option of going off the record or having a private conversation?
Do tell.
Cheers,
Joel
June 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Marc, a very interesting exchange. SPJ, is that an oxymoron in this day and age of blogs, vlogs, computer-radio? Just curious!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The debate is worth reading just for the “macaca” moment mentioned by Marc, which is a pretty good parallel to the situation Fowler was in. Did the person who recorded that video act improperly by making it public?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I think it is crazy for a politician to expect his or her comments to be off the record unless explicitly agreed ahead of time. In that case, the closer the number of people in the room gets to 2, the better off you are. One may be even better yet.
The few times I had to talk to a reporter for a campaign I probably annoyed the hell out of the reporter since I didn’t really know what would make it in to the article and what would not, and as a result I was super cautious almost to the point of paranoia about what I would say.
I don’t really get what the debate is. You open your trap in public, expect whatever comes out to end up in the paper. If your personality is vastly different in private than it is in public, then you better pretend like you’re in public all the time.
Moreover these people all made the conscious decision to enter public life, and while that does not erase their right to privacy, it certainly erodes it. No one made Clinton or anyone else run for president.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
This comes to the nature of what is journalism? I went to J-school for undergrad - and in the journalistic ethics course, this was hotly debated. There is an ideology of metod among many reporters - I’d call it a reactionary ideology - see the note above - that journalists have to have a sense of decorum with certain folks. A point of view more in keeping of “ruthless criticism of all that exists” is that what is “out there” is fodder for journalists, what anyone says, any time. Some would even argue as to if there should be such thing as the record. Way I see it it is up to a subject who knows he or she is talking to a journalist to say off the record, and even then, - even if the journalist agrees, this puts this journalist under no obligation to follow it. There are plenty of stories that would not have been told without journalists tricking - and sometimes using dishonesty - with their sourcces.
On the other hand one needs decorum if one wants to keep access. I think of people like Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk - correspondants such as this - their sources are their bread and butter. But if Hersh wants to - and I’m sure he has - screw a source and lsoe access in order to tell the story correctly, that is his obligation.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I’m pretty darn sure that it is impossible to be off-the-record working a ropeline …
June 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I checked the “Society for Professional Journalists” web site for a code of ethics* and found it here. If a journalist is a member, then those are the ethical standards that should be followed. If one is not a member, presumably like Mayhill Flowers, then they may be as sleazy as Keith Olbermann. You can’t hold someone accountable with standards of an association to which he or she does not belong.
In reviewing the ethics code, I don’t know of any journalists who follow it.
* The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society’s members.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Not to spoil the fun here, but Dennis Kucinich (Dumbass-Ohio) is on C-Span right now, introducing thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush. Didn’t Nancy Pelosi say that impeachment was “off the table?”
June 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Hey, speaking of journalistic ethics, reg shared this comment with us about the Senate intelligence report calling President Bush a liar.
Well, not so fast, there.
WAPO - ‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.
I wonder if Kucinich is simply relying on what he read about that report from KOS?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Incidentally, Marc, did you neglect to tell the readers that the ethics chairman of the Society for Professional Journalists is a full-time, highly-paid PR man for a well-known LA politician?
June 10th, 2008 at 12:26 am
No.. Bill.. I’m not covering for Joel. He’s duly identified in the piece I linked to as the press guy to LA County Supervisor Yaroslavsky..
For full disclosure: I know Joel and I like him very much. He’s a good guy and we’ve appeared as guest speakers in each other’s classes.
That said, the irony of a professional political spokesman being named ethics chair of the local SPJ sorta escaped me. I consider Joel to be quite ethical but, let’s say, his position creates at least an appearance of conflict of interest. I think this says a whole lot more about SPJ than it does about Joel.
I won a major national reporting prize from SPJ 20 years ago but I’ve never joined the organization. It always struck me as being a bit like the 4H Club or something.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:48 am
These guys just cannot let it go. Their sudden concern over the ethics of on v/s off the record is peculiar. Would they have preferred Daniel Ellsberg not leak the Pentagon Papers because he was breaking some sacred rule?
Meanwhile, I wonder if all the people who decided that Mayhill was a Fred Thompson plant have now rethought that accusation.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Good point, timotheus, and in fact the Supreme Court ruled that the press could not be restrained from publishing the Pentagon Papers. Some here might be too young to remember the groundbreaking events of the 60s and 70s, but they still should have read about them in their history books.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Woody…define how Olbermann is sleazy.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:44 am
…as opposed to, say, Billo.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I was involved in the organizing around the Ellsberg defense, but I think invoking Ellsberg in the context of discussion of Mayhill Fowler borders on the absurd. There’s good reason for journalists to want to maintain certain “rules” around “off-the-record” conversations, although most of the panty-twisting around Mayhill Fowler (certainly in the case of the Clinton comments) is bullshit. I detest most of the sluts who pass for journalists, although I assume the few great reporters like Sy Hersh have an interest in maintaining some sense of decorum and trust with their sources. Mayhill Fowler isn’t a serious journalist, so most of this stuff on both sides is reacting to trivia. She’s not a breakthrough journalist nor are the guys who are horrified that she’d print Bill’s scumbag comments reliable professionals so much as hacks tending their treadmills.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I’ve looked back over some of Fowlers posts and one of the most useful and interesting was her compilation of various other “citizen-journalists” sending in field reports on Obama canvasing. It was an example of something Off-the-Bus could do that others couldn’t. This kind of innovation, of course, isn’t ever mentioned in these discussions. It’s all about the gotcha’s Mayhill caught on tape that fit MSM narratives about either Obama’s “elitism” or Bill C’s anger (and of course the salacious aspects of Purdom’s VF piece.) I have seen the future…and it looks an awful lot like the past.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Marc, of course I didn’t think you were covering for him. As it’s certainly in your interest to mention it. It just seemed a notable omission, perhaps the result of the fatigue we are all feeling today.
>Marc Cooper Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 12:26 am
No.. Bill.. I’m not covering for Joel. He’s duly identified in the piece I linked to as the press guy to LA County Supervisor Yaroslavsky..
For full disclosure: I know Joel and I like him very much. He’s a good guy and we’ve appeared as guest speakers in each other’s classes.
That said, the irony of a professional political spokesman being named ethics chair of the local SPJ sorta escaped me. I consider Joel to be quite ethical but, let’s say, his position creates at least an appearance of conflict of interest. I think this says a whole lot more about SPJ than it does about Joel.
I won a major national reporting prize from SPJ 20 years ago but I’ve never joined the organization. It always struck me as being a bit like the 4H Club or something.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
What about seducing sources to talk? Let’s not pretend journalists don’t consider this a crucial part of their craft.
How far can a journalist go in presenting themselves as “friendly” to the source? Reporters are taught a range of tactics for making interviewees comfortable, from repeating their own language back to them to less subtle forms of flattery. “Flirting” is a crucial skill.
When much is at stake, journalists are generally put in a position to have to wheedle out information or, at worst, pickpocket it.
Mayhill the Fouler did a quick and dirty version of “befriending” the source in Bill C’s case by speaking as if she shared his view on Todd Purdum. In Obama’s case, she apparently established her status as “friendly” by giving the candidate money.
Her best defense on that front is the one Marc makes, i.e. Clinton knows better. But the issue is live and “befriending” sources is a slippery slope indeed.
This isn’t as simple as a case of whether a statement is assumed on or off the record. If I convey to the source that I am sympathetic to him or her, don’t I have some responsiblity to live up to that?
Most journalists, especially professionals covering national politics for major organizations, make some effort to convey that they are neutral, and, they have a track record that their subjects can check. At least that’s on the surface. Beneath that, there is another level where they work very hard to be friends of the powerful.
Most journalists will at some point be faced with a situation where they have made efforts great or small to befriend a source, then obtained information that would ruin the source’s career or bring some other harm to them.
It’s neither honest nor transparent to burn a source who you deliberately seduced into thinking you would not burn them. Journalists might argue that this is a gray area and the good the disclosure does outweighs the bad.
But it probably doesn’t in most cases. Ultimately, journalists should be unfriendly as the default “neutral” position, given that the definition of news is something that surprises, meaning in most cases, something bad.
I can’t see that happening, though, because there simply isn’t enough readers or viewers who care. People want to hear celebrities saying “fresh” things and politicians saying sensational things, whether or not the context is available.
Larry King is the “King” of interviews because he blatantly flaunts his sympathies with virtually all guests.
Most newspapers are have plenty of people around with solid writing skills, news judgment and work ethics, but what gets one assigned to the plum beat of covering national politics is that most essential skill: seducing sources.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I disagree with the Wash Post piece in one particular. I do agree that “Bush Lied” is a little over-simple. However, the article is wrong when it suggests that the only problem is that the intelligence was wrong.
Intelligence was not “wrong” about the Atta/Iraqi meeting in Prague…there was much evidence that it did not occur, but Bush/Cheney cherry-picked, and chose to promote the war on that sliver of rumor that it did, while burying the preponderant evidence that it didn’t.
The same is true about the yellowcake uranium from AFRICA, as Bush reported in the 2003 state of the union speech. A dollop of rumor that Saddam was looking for uranium in Niger, which was never confirmed and thus was not intelligence at all, was cited without any indication that the report could not be confirmed.
Ditto for aluminum tubes designed for centrifuges, mobile poison labs, etc, etc.
I believe that it is a bit strong to call what the administration did “lying,” but that does not mean Bush and Cheney did not entice the American (and British, and Polish) people into war under false pretenses.
And just because it is not a pure lie, Woody, does not mean it is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached. Like Nancy Pelosi, though, I agree that the better policy is to end the politics of retribution, and to let the people speak through the ballot box.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
In one of the other threads, I noted that surreptitious recording was illegal under California Penal Code 632. Such recording is legal under federal law, but is proscribed in many other states.
For the recording to be unlawful, at least in CA and I would guess in most jurisdictions, though, the speaker must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication. I agree that Bill Clinton had no such expectation in the rope-line where he trashed Prudum.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Woody…define how Olbermann is sleazy… …as opposed to, say, Billo.
Jim, they’re both sleazy and in the tank for their respective causes and/or “sides”.
Nothing drives me crazier personally than when one side claims everyone speaking for the other side nothing more than a scheming money-grubbing sellout child molester, while those who speak for their own side are of course perfect, wonderful and honest in every way at all times.
No, there may not be any such real attribute to any human being as “objectivity”, but I respect those who at least try. (I would name names but I don’t want to start another flame war; I’m sure there are those here who believe Randi Rhodes is the very model of objectivity, while others believe Rush Limbaugh isn’t nearly mean and partisan enough.)
June 10th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Reg.. Does it give u a charge to repeat — ad nauseum– that Mayhill Fowler isnt a “serious journalist?” Cuz u sure do it a lot, and in more than one venue.
I think it’s actually petty of you. Belittling. Why dont u find someone more powerful to heap scorn on?
No one claims that she — or me — is a Serious Journalist. That is hardly the point. Nor is it that the stories she broke were of first rate substance (all in the eye of the beholder).
What counts is that — with all of its downs and mostly its ups– rather ordinary people can now gather and distribute information (substantial or otherwise) finally eroding the monopoly held by clown and gasbags like Jonathan Alter. That’s a good thing for democracy. And it’s good that people like Mayhill are willing to stick their necks out there and go get it, for little or no money, and then expose themselves to the sort of public trashing that you are gleefully participating in. You don’t have to agree with her or evev very much like or respect what she does. But it seems there might just be a few more worthier targets out there for your demeaning characterizations.
By the way, as the editor of her piece on Bittergate, I instantly understood the context of Obama’s remarks. Must mean you’re slow on the uptake, citizen. Which must mean, in turn, that we pros are lucky that slower folks like you aren’t out there getting in our way.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
And I am going to repeat what I said earlier, which is that people only complain about blogger or “citizen journalist” reporting when they don’t like what they report. Does that sound familiar? How long has the right been complaining about the liberal press, etc, when mainstream journalists expose what is really going on in Iraq, Vietnam, etc. It’s the message hypocrites of both the left and right don’t like, not the medium.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Bullshit Marc. The full context was provided by several others, not Fowler. This is a fact.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“Nor is it that the stories she broke were of first rate substance”
No shit ?
You’ve been touting this second-rate crap as some breakthrough. Guess it gives you a charge - ad nauseum. As for the fact that ordinary folk can now catch and disseminate newsworthy stuff, who knew ?
June 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
You want a a PhD in “Petty” -
“Note Obama’s delicate sentence constructions. Never a gender pronoun–a he or a she–anywhere.” M. Fowler
June 11th, 2008 at 6:12 am
reg: “You want a a PhD in “Petty†-
“Note Obama’s delicate sentence constructions. Never a gender pronoun–a he or a she–anywhere.†M. Fowler”
Michael Balter: “And I am going to repeat what I said earlier, which is that people only complain about blogger or “citizen journalist†reporting when they don’t like what they report. ”
Balter - - - > Point, Set and Match!
June 11th, 2008 at 6:48 am
It’s funny that you chimed in Roper, because I was thining that Marc was starting to sound a bit like you in his lack of any substantive response to comments I’ve made in this thread…
June 11th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Point 1 - Bill Bradley has established as fact that the SF fundraiser was planned as an event which was closed to journalists. Fowler weaseled her way in. Marc’s response to this is “Tough cookeis - we’re all journalists now!” Yeah, right.
Point 2 - Fowler provided a raw recording of the event, but nowhere in her piece on it does she mention that Obama was specifically asked by 2 volunteers who were headed to Pennsylvania to work on the campaign for him to give them the temperature of the place. Nor does she include a parallel discussion of African-American youth in her version. His motivation for discussing Pennsylvania voters before this “elite crowd” is relevant - because everything Fowler writes pushes the notion that these were dispassionate funders for whom he was dissecting some lower form of life - not that he was giving his on-the-ground assessment of some issues that were real in Pennsylvania as a strategist providing context to some campaign workers who would be canvassing there in a few days.
Point 3 - Fowler’s big journalistic catches got the play they did because there were mainstream media narratives ready and waiting for them - Obama the aloof elitist and Clinton the Crazed. To the degree that they fit these narratives they became big deals. So this “new media” was, as usual, in pure symbiosis with the old.
Point 4 - I complimented some work that Fowler and Marc did that was actually an innovation of on-line “citizen journalism” that the mainstream media would find difficult-to-impossible to match. That’s of no consequence because he’s (jusifiable, by “old journalism” terms) obsessed with the story that’s making it big in the mainstream press and sparring over the question of “off-the-record” - which in the SF-Obama case Bill Bradley has made a convincing case that Fowler did something only an amateur quasi-journalist using a bit of a swindle to gain access wouldor could try to get away with. If Marc is proud of that, fine.
Point 5 - This is small potatoes compared to the 2006 Georege Allen “caught on tape” episode - which was similiar to Clinton’s, not Obama’s, because it was a bizarre but telling gaffe before a crowd of people. So there’s nothing here we haven’t seen before - except the claim that it’s “transformative journalism” rather than political “gotcha” recycled with elevated rubric.
Pint 6 - Josh Marshall has, without a journalism degree incidentally, pioneered a kind of online journalism that is an expansion IMHO of what IF Stone did in newsletter form. He’s broken important stories during the AG Gonzalez scandals by mobilizing his readers into action. He periodically does this when there are large document dumps as well. TPM is a great example of the future of journalism that’s changed by the internet - of an individual using the new tools and doing breakthrough journalism. As I’ve said before - and I get a buzz every time I say this, of course - Mayhll Fowler would not likely get a job with TPM based on the turgid, self-referential stuff she churns out. She’s not a bad person. Just not much of a journalist in any sense that interests me. Unlike the mainstream media which has a fascination with her and her tape recorder.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Incidentally, the only reason there’s any discussion at all among journalists of the Clinton-ropeline episode is because Fowler is now being represented as a new form of journalist. Had she done what she did as either an offended bystander or an Obama partisan, nobody would be questioning the “ethics” - just as no one questioned the ethics of the Webb volunteer who was taping George Allen. Webb saw the guy and stuck his foot in it. If an Obama partisan baited Clinton and fed that moment of “indiscretion” to the press, no one would be yammering about this at all. I believe the only issue here is that since Fowler is represented as “citizen-journalist” should she follow “citizen” rules - which are do whatever the hell you wanna do ‘cuz this is America goddamit - or “journalist rules” which are ossified to be sure, but exist because journalists don’t want to be summarily thrown off campaign buses, etc. out of fear that the candidate may inadvertently belch or fart in their presence. The protocol that journalists identifiy themselves as such in “normal” situations of asking questions isn’t simply an example of them being dinosaurs. It’s out of a sense of professionalism. I doubt that it’s taught in Marc’s classes that it’s a mark of good journalistic instincts to (a) ask leading questions about material you haven’t even read and (b) that good leading questions in serious journalistic mode are framed the way Fowler framed hers.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I would assume, in fairness, that in Marc’s advice to his students, the point would be well-taken that if you’re at a bit of a loss and unprepared, as Fowler admits she was, but you’ve got one shot, Don’t Just Stand There, Do Something - or you’ve got no chance of a story at all ! Although surely that’s one of the Old Rules…
June 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“Webb saw the guy” should have been “Allen saw the guy…”
June 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“I take your point about the technology, but I’m not one of those who believes a journalist is anyone who happens to have a recording capability in their cell-phone or PDA.”
Oooooh, what a slam - she is trying to imply that Flowers isn’t a journalist - what a subtle dig - do they teach that at the Society of Professional Journalists. No wonder the public has such respect for our media - such high values and standards.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:20 am
reg: “because I was thining that Marc was starting to sound a bit like you in his lack of any substantive response to comments I’ve made in this thread…”
That’s because you don’t make any substantive comments. You just type away because you like the sound of your words. A tempest in a teapot as it were.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Another great Roper contribution to the discussion. Thanks for playing the game.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Can’t help myself reg… you are just too easy!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
At least you responded…
June 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am
[...] Fowler defines herself as a citizen-journalist: an ordinary American armed with paper, pen, and a working Internet connection. Sometimes these people are armed with cameras and tape recorders, but that only makes them more effective: the reporting is backed up by audio or video. Michel argued that one form of journalism isn’t superior to another, but maintains that citizen journalists should be respected and taken seriously: So, if the media, and the citizen media, actually show up and Bill starts talking, there’s no debate. Any journalist who overheard Clinton answer Mayhill’s question could have posted this news item. Anyone else could have trained his/her recorder, videocamera, or cellphone on him for those two minutes. And why shouldn’t they? It was a public event hosted by a former president and, for all practical purposes, EVERYTHING was on the record. [...]