Obama, Hillary, Oppo: A Journey Deep Inside Our Collective Navels

Your column seems to discount Obama's explination that this memo was not reviewed by senior campaign staffers.

Do you not even consider the possibility that it was a low level individual who thought he could impress everyone with his wit?

If the truth was something the MSM cared deeply about it would never publish anything that was "not for attribution." That doesn't mean that certain sources could remain unknown. It simply means that anything that was provided off-the-record, would be checked for accuracy first, against reality, before being published. In this case there is no reason to even mention that the original source wished to remain anonymous, since the truth or falsehood would be independently verified.

In the first thread someone mentioned that the Clinton assets were in a blind trust. That means they wouldn't know where the assets were invested, by definition, including in off-shore sweat shops that are killing US jobs. Therefore, there is no real substance to the story. However, if one wanted to press the issue I suppose an argument could be put forth that they shouldn't have put their money in blind trusts at all, given the fact that the money could potentially end up in off-shore slave factories, that are not good for US workers.

Jeezus. What was that middle part again?

Any chance we could move on to something important?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014709.php

Rudy bags the Iraq Study Group. Worthy of 1,000 words like this boring topic?

Obama campaign made a mistake and he took responsibility and apologized for it. It is not a big deal. So let's move on to other important stuff.

That struck me as a pretty honest post, which I appreciate. To me, though, it's a sad indictment of the state of journalism today that there is such a willingness to trade access for good reporting (in this and so many other ways). Easy to say from the peanut gallery, I know.

I think of it as a matter of professional ethics. For instance, some doctors cut corners to get ahead and proscribe oxycotin to people they shouldn't, which can be lucrative for them. But most doctors refuse. It's probably inevitable that some journalists cut corners to get ahead. But it's sad that this is almost universal -- to varying degrees -- among journalists. And, really, I think access is way over-valued.

Like I said, this is easy to say from the peanut gallery. I actually think there may be a niche though for a reporter / news outlet that starts publishing this stuff (consistently and from both sides, unlike Ad Nags one-off against a Democratic candidate only). That depends on there being other people willing to forward it to him/her obviously.

Thanks for the response Ana.

Innies or Outies?

Though I think the Obama email stank, I think the right thing for reporters who were unwilling to honor the "not for attribution" condition was not to report either the Clintons' investments or the Obama email with the tip. If in an f2f the source says, "let's go off the record", and the reporter says, "no, let's not', then the source generally stops talking. A guy like Adam Nagourney, especially, can't be trusted not to out sources selectively, based on whether he personally finds the candidate/subject likable or authentic, or whatever else is going on in his vacant little brain.

One thing that might be fair for all concerned is for anonymice to put "NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION--PLEASE DISCARD IF UNWILLING TO COMPLY" in the subject line of the email. Then, it seems to me, for the reporter to read the email would be to tacitly agree to the non-attribution.

> Of course, “off the record” emails continue
> because campaigns have the upper hand. Or at least
> journalists and campaigns both imagine they do.
> In theory, reporters could refuse to recognize a
> contract they didn't agree to -- as Nagourney
> proved -- but they have to weigh that strict
> interpretation of the source-reporter relationship
> against some other factors: the need for access

Of course, the traditional media never mentions this to its readers while it is going on. Not speak to you specifically AMC, but this is the sort of thing that drives me crazy about the traditional media and its pretensions. We hear from many (including at least one of your co-bloggers) about how traditional media pundits get 42 years of training in delving into the deep truth of Washington DC and therefore must be Trusted(tm) by the readers when they make pronouncements. Yet it turns out that much of this "delving" consists of getting to the fax machine first and printing campaign-created juicy gossip marked "not for attribution". Who knew.

Cranky

"NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION--PLEASE DISCARD IF UNWILLING TO COMPLY"

I don't think lines like that would be legally binding, besides it goes against the reasoning behind anonymous sources anyways.

Anonymous sources (and the protections surrounding them), serve as whistleblowers against their own group. The protections are there to A)Keep them from being fired/thrown in jail/killed. B)If they continue to be in their current position they can provide even more information. However, they aren't there to protect a campaign from spreading false rumors about a competitor.

Journalists need to grow a pair and stop offering the protection of anonymity to people who don't deserve it. The stories really should go as follows:

"We received a tip from Joe Schmoe a Junior Staffer for the Obama campaign that Hillary got botox injections. We weren't able to verify with independent sources whether or not this was true, so this may be a false claim from the Obama campaign."

This won't happen, because reporters like to make it look like they found about it themselves. Boosts their ego and all that.

Hi Ana,

Since this is related, I'm going to ask a question once again that I have asked periodically here in the past. Maybe I'll get lucky this time and get an answer (or at least some frank discussion):

Is a reporter obligated to report the truth to the public when a 'background' source is known to be lying? If 'background' information turns out to be malicious, or the source lies about it later, do you have an obligation to the public to 'out' the source (or at least retract the story and provide your readership with some context)?

In asking this question I'm thinking specifically about the Plame case, where we saw some reporters report the denials of leaking by public officials. But those very same reporters had received the leaks from those same public officials and knew that the denials they were reporting to the public was false. Those reporters may have been behaving pragmatically, but were they behaving ethically?

In your discussion you state: 'Burn someone over an email and you risk losing access to everything'. To be harsh about it, although this may be career threatening to you, why should the public care? If the public is being misled and/or manipulated, how can the public protect itself without knowledge? The public is depending on you.

If revealing the truth can be career threatening to a journalist, didn't the profession of journalism allow this to happen to itself? And isn't it the profession's obligation to correct this problem?

From obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop:

"Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian “Techies.”"

is that bad that employees cisco donate Hillary? Is that what Obama is saying?

cisco donations to Obama:

BIEN, WILLIAM
MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94040
CISCO/MANAGER
3/30/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

ELLETT, JAMES
MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94043
CISCO SYSTEMS/ENGINEER
3/29/2007
$500
Obama, Barack

HUSSAIN, IMTIAZ
PLANO,TX 75025
CISCO SYSTEMS
2/21/2003
$500
Obama, Barack

HUSSAIN, IMTIAZ
PLANO,TX 75025
CISCO SYSTEMS
3/16/2004
$500
Obama, Barack

KELLER, DAVID
ATHERTON,CA 94027
CISCO/CONSULTANT
3/15/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

MADDOCKS, MARGARET A MS
LOS GATOS,CA 95030
CISCO SYSTEMS INC./DIRECTOR OF EDUC
1/22/2007
$1,000
Obama, Barack

MOORE, GARY B
LOS ALTOS,CA 94022
CISCO/SR VICE PRESIDENT
3/31/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

MORGRIDGE, JOHN
PORTOLA VALLEY,CA 94028
CISCO SYSTEMS
8/16/2004
$2,000
Obama, Barack

NORDLINGER, CHRISTOPHER
PALO ALTO,CA 94301
CISCO SYSTEMS/EXECUTIVE
3/31/2007
$2,300
Obama, Barack

OWENS, WENDY M
CHICAGO,IL 60605
CISCO SYSTEMS
5/3/2004
$835
Obama, Barack

WRIGHT, PHILIP
CELEBRATION,FL 34747
CISCO/SALES
1/16/2007
$250
Obama, Barack
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=XFT3G&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=obama&txtEmploy=cisco&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N

And wouldn't employees of a company that is outsource their jobs donate to a pol they think might stop it?

From obama's karl rove style dirty tricks shop where they dig up Ron Brown:

"1993: The Dates Of Burkle’s Donations To Democratic Party Sandwich His Attendance On A Commerce Dept. Trade Mission. The Boston Globe wrote, “Coveted slots on US foreign trade missions generated a major fund-raising bonanza for the Democratic Party during President Clinton’s first term, with the business leaders who were invited on such trips contributing $ 15 million to Democratic Party committees over the four-year period. In 1995, the same year the White House began holding regular coffee meetings that raised millions of dollars, the Commerce Department dramatically increased its roster for overseas travel. ..."

Judging by the picutres Karen and Anna Marie are too young to remember Ron Brown. So please take the time to look him up and you'll see it just doesn't get any lower than this.

I think one issue that hasn't been brought up is that the Obama staffer responsible for the emails might just be a little naive about the way things work? The GOP has Drudge to feed the MSM all that anti-Dem nasty cheese, and GOP oppo research people seem to have a lot of MSM phone numbers on their speed dial. I think if either of these entities(Drudge, GOP oppo) fed this story to the MSM instead of an Obama staffer, it may have played out entirely different...a more straight up anti-Hillary story along the lines of "Is Hillary supportive of outsourcing American jobs?". When a Dem source feeds the story to the MSM, the story becomes "Democrats engage in mud-slinging". Am I being overly cynical here?

Ana, you ask why the Obama campaign disowned the communication even if encompassed serious issues:

Forgive me but considering slur was on ethnicity this was a line his campaign could never afford to run. Or that just too obvious?

People who criticize Obama are racist and people who criticize Hillary are sexist, so why don't we all come together to criticize Bush, who is the source of our collective problems?

I Love you girls

Buy

Dear hadenough,

you posting is full of lies, my donation was not a "Cisco" donation, it was a personal donation. For the record, we live in a free society and I have the RIGHT to donate my candiate of choice.