My experience (limited as it is) with journalists in the Peoria area has been that, when you state that something is off the record, it’s off the record. I haven’t experienced personally or heard from others that journalists in this town have deliberately printed any off-the-record remarks. So I just thought that’s the way it works with all journalists. Then this quote from The Scotsman was published recently:
“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms [Samantha] Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.
Power is a Pulitzer Prize winning author for her book “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” and a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama. She has now resigned due to the publication of her comments.
There has been quite a bit of outcry against the paper for publishing her remarks when she very clearly asked them to be off the record. The paper and other journalistic sources I checked defended the paper. Typical is The Scotsman’s official response, which basically says that an agreement to be “off the record” must be reached in advance — it can’t be invoked retroactively to take back unguarded comments. The Scotsman’s editor Mike Gilson:
[W]e are certain it was right to publish. I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on-the-record quotes after they have been made. The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.
Doesn’t he sound pious? Of course, the purpose of the interview was to promote Power’s new book, “Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World,” so all the Obama campaign talk was off the subject, and may explain why she forgot to request that her comments about American politics be off the record until it was evidently too late.
So, did the Scotsman break any ethical rules? Most, though not all, of the sources I’ve consulted say no. Were they jerks for publishing it? Yes. Does it make their reporters look like predatory journalists and their paper look like a tabloid fish wrapper? Yes. Will candidates, aides, and advisors agree to any more interviews with The Scotsman? Not likely.
I’ve been doing jorunalism and observing journalists off and on for 20 years. Usually, the louder the cry is for “the public’s right to know,” the greater the likelihood that the information being discussed actually contributes very little to the debate, and in insteadly merely something scandalous or outrageous. Such is the case here. Is it any real surprise that someone who is associated with one candidate’s campaign has a bad opinion about the other candidate?
Was “off the record” violated here? Probably not.
Ethically? No. Nothing is ever off the record. When your talking to any reporter, anytime, your taking a chance. The reporters in Peoria will usually listen when you say something is off the record because they don’t want to burn that bridge. If you don’t want it printed, don’t say it. Period.
I was disappointed with the way she responded after the comment was printed, with all that garbage about how she respects Sen. Clinton, blah, blah, blah. She should have said it was off the record and should not have been printed, but then just admit that is what she thinks of Clinton. Most people agree with her.
Off subject C.J., but did you make some sort of change to your site? It’s taking waaaay longer to download than it used to. Or is it my lovely new cable company?
I’m having the same trouble, Mazr. It appears to be getting hung up on the various things in the sidebar (Site Meter, Truth Laid Bear, etc.). I’m hoping it’s just temporary — if it keeps up, I may have to remove those scripts.
I had trouble getting the site to download too.
I don’t know if it was right of the paper to publish her comment. I don’t think it added that much.I try to respect people’s wishes unless it’s something they said would be on the record and then they call later and change their mind. That has happened to me before.
I always try to remember the two rules of “off the record.” As Ryan stated, the only thing truly off the record is the thing you never say.
And rule number two, you and the reporter must agree to go off the record in advance. You can’t say something stupid or dumb, and then say is is off-limits. I think the paper was correct to publish the remarks.
Their are no two people in this world as selfish as the Clintons. Hillaarys’ 35 years of service consists of lawyering for a crooked law firm and savings and loan company, investing in a corrupt land deal,trying to get a secretely composed health plan accepted by her husband and Congress, moving from her real residence to New York to be a Senator from that State, doing nothing while in the Senate, adnd now trying to rest on her husbands’ laurels and become President. Let’s be real about this woman.
you can add that she failed the bar exam the first time around. And if she wants to argue about Obama’s five hours of service with Rezko, how about her getting the Black Panther members off on the charge of murder? Its in her biography on the Internet, look it up.
And how about her and her husband leading, I say LEADING, protests against the Vietnam war while “studying” in England? Ever see their picture doing so-quite the different figures you see them tring to be when back in the States.Yes, she would be a great Commander-in-Chief alright!
OK… here we go again. A white college punk from Bradley just killed his “friend” by shoving him into the street in front of an oncoming car, and is charged with “involuntary manslaughter”.
When are we going to learn? If you push someone into traffic and they die, what was the intent: to make them “a better person”? To validate their personhood? To show affection? How is that different from throwing a brick off an overpass or setting off incindiery devices off into a locked room? If you point a gun at someone with the intent to scare them or only “wound” them and you end up killing them we would charge you with murder. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
Whether the intent was “horsing around” or showing off, this idiot took the life of a person for no reason. Not only that, but has changed the lives of the person who actually hit the boy with their car, and all the friends and families involved.
STOP IT!
Kodad: It is called involuntary manslaughter, exactly what he is charged with.
kcdad – Thanks for clarifying he was white.
kcdad– Wacko is right. It’s not murder in either this case or the hypothetical one you describe, as murder requires an intent to kill (malice aforethought). I’m not an expert, but just from a plain reading of the definitions, involuntary manslaughter is the right charge, in my opinion.
It’s the same org Democrats supported without question in 92 and 96….deal.
(_._)
C.J.: I am also having trouble with your sidebar (not sure which part though). The first time I tried today it even hung my browser (Fx 2.0.0.12 on Ubuntu). Besides that, it’s just been slow. I disallow scripting from truthlaidbear, sitemeter, and technorati so if you have any scripts that run directly from peoriachronicle.com I’d start looking there.
Ben — I got rid of the scripts in my sidebar. I’m guessing that will mess up my stats, but I’d rather my readers have quicker access to the site, as the stats don’t really have any value to the readers, and since I don’t sell advertising on my site, the stats have limited value to me as well.
The student has been charged with “reckless conduct” a reduced charge. Maybe the police, state’s attorney, and those involved know something none of us know? Go figure…
Site is much quicker now. Thanks C.J.