When is ‘off the record’ not off the record? Obama aide Samantha Power called rival Hillary Clinton ‘a monster’ in a conversation with a reporter from the Scotsman. Here’s how they reported the chat:
“We f***** up in Ohio,” she admitted. “In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win.
“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.
I think that ultimately there is no such thing as 100% off the record. If Gordon Brown told me in confidence that he was a mass killer then I would be obliged to mention this to the police and I have to say I would be tempted to try to write something in public, too. But if someone does establish at the beginning of a conversation that it is off the record then the assumption has to be that it will stay anonymous and unattributed. If you betray their trust then your ability to garner confidential information in the future will be undermined. And your readers or audience will not be impressed if that is how you behave.
But on this occasion it is clear that Powers had made no such pre-interview deal and that her attempt to conceal her remark only makes her look more silly. She was peddling her book rather than acting as an official Obama spokesperson anyway. Her indiscretion is hardly crime of the century but it was valid to report what was an revealing insight in to the real state of feelings among campaigners in America’s tightest primary race for decades.�
Fair point, Charlie.
Let’s keep in mind – ‘hastily trying to withdraw her remark’ is how the reporter characterised the situation. That’s quite self-serving… even a bit snide.
Now I wasn’t there, but the reporter could have immediately said – ‘I’m sorry, no matter what you tell me this entire interview is on the record — would you like to reconsider your remark altogether?’ Or – ‘okay, is that one statement off the record?’ etc. If the reporter just nodded and later reported the remark – that’s bad. If the journalist says ‘gotcha! I was waiting for you to slip-up’ – again, bad…
If it’s even a close call, it seems to me the journalist owes it to the interviewee to respect their wishes that certain things remain off the record. Let’s keep this clear — it wasn’t investigative journalism — it was a fluff-piece interview.
But why do you insist on a pre-interview deal or something arranged completely beforehand? Can’t interviewees think of tidbits they would like to share during the interview and assume a fair-minded journalist will respect their on-the-spot request to keep it off the record? This was not a live interview — so there’s no argument that it was ‘too late’. It’s only too late because the reporter thought she scored with a sizzler.
Like you, I think, I’m not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach, but it seems awfully reaching for this reporter to gleefully report it how the interviewee tried to keep it off the record.
The reporter was looking for a quick score and got one, probably to the detriment of her reporting career. Look what happened to Connie Chung after she did that to Newt Gingrich’s mother…
Interesting though…
Russ
Great post. Obama’s aid was right. Hillary is a monster. Of course not the same kind of monster as Hitler, Mao & Stalin; but a monster nonetheless.
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
claim to care for people
call yourself progressive
your policies hurt poor folk
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
elect women presidents
who cover for their husbands
who rape other women
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
vote for any woman
better than any man
none could make things any worse
.
if you’re MAD
punish your country
VOTE for Hillary
.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/
Go here and watch ‘The Hillary Show’ with Howard Dean. It’s Hillarious!
http://www.stophernow.com/
🙂
.