Different standards, not subservience

She ought to have told Ms. Power that "off the record" didn't work that way and have given her a Mulligan on that one remark.

-- jcolumbus

There are no mulligans in journalism. And no crying in politics.

A source can ask for it up front but it's up to the journalist or editor to grant it. I don't care where you go to J school. That's what they teach you. The interview was on the record. Here are your different standards:

"Speaking terms"

There are several categories of "speaking terms" (agreements concerning attribution) that cover information conveyed in conversations with journalists. In the UK the following conventions are generally accepted:

"On-the-record": all that is said can be quoted and attributed.

"Unattributable": what is said can be reported but not attributed.

"Off-the-record": the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication.

However, confusion over the precise meaning of "unattributable" and "off-the-record" has led to more detailed formulations:

"Chatham House Rule(s)": so called after Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) which first introduced the rule in 1927, now in widespread use:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."

"Lobby Terms"[4]: in the UK accredited journalists are allowed in to the otherwise restricted Members' Lobby on the basis that information received there is never attributed and events there are not reported. "Lobby terms" are agreed to extend this arrangement to cover discussions that take place elsewhere.

"Not for attribution" (as described by the Canadian Association of Journalists). The comments may be quoted directly, but the source may only be identified in general terms (e.g., "a government insider"). In practice such general descriptions may be agreed with the interviewee.

"On background" (Canadian Association of Journalists). The thrust of the briefing may be reported (and the source characterized in general terms as above) but direct quotes may not be used.

"Deep background" This term is used in the U.S., though not consistently. Most journalists would understand "deep background" to mean that the information may not be included in the article but is used by the journalist to enhance his or her view of the subject matter, or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_sourcing#.22Speaking_terms.22

I too am an Obama supporter and the firing of Power raises questions that the M$M doesn’t seem to care about. If I were a journalist and was disgusted by all the hoopla about the use of the word “monster,” I would wonder about and investigate issues like the following: was Power really fired because of a loose comment?; was the Obama camp more upset about how candid she was on their Iraq policy?; was Power’s position on Iraq within the team contrary to campaign leadership?; was Power already on shaky ground and this uproar was the last straw?; was Power worn out from the stress of a campaign and realized she wanted out and this slip of the tongue would let her leave and help Obama make the point that he only runs clean campaigns?; will Obama’s position on Iraq that currently is designed for loyal Dems, change once he is running in the general election?

Could I investigate such questions without talking to campaign staffers on some kind of background, deep background, off the record basis? Have I developed a rapport and trust with an insider who knows that I am actually a journalist seeking the truth? Can I be duped by a campaign player who only wants to serve his/her ends? Do I know enough about Iraq or have the time to fully research the issue so that I will be fair to the very demanding question of how to pull ourselves out of the ditch with the least amount of damage? Am I taking into consideration of how difficult it is for a candidate to be candid or too specific on an issue when anything said can and will be used against you by anyone at any time?

My whole point in all this is to show why real journalism is tough, hard work and why it is so much easier to just join the “star” crowd and crow about meaningless blather or take meaningless blather and make it and me sound important.

And we, the recipients of shallow or misleading “journalism” are at fault as well because we are not demanding real journalism and when it does show up, we don’t give it the recognition that it deserves. We need a Peoples Award Show on prime time that recognizes print, broadcast and Internet journalists, like Glenn and Scott Horton, that makes them into “stars” with groupie followings to have any hope of bringing back real journalism and the power of the fourth estate. That’s half facetious, but some major foundation should look seriously into how real journalists could be recognized on a much greater scale than is done now.

I think that Carlson was right in part, though he was wrong enough that it is hard to see the part he did get right. Ms. Power was accustomed to speaking with American reporters. American reporters would not have printed her remark. A British reporter would.

This just isn't true. Many American reporters would not have published it, but it's hardly some recognized, universal rule on which Samantha Power could rely. I can't find the link right now, but in 2004, a Kerry staffer sent some attack on another candidate to the New York Times' Adam Nagourney and labeled it "off the record" or "for background."

But Nagourney published it and attributed it to the Kerry staffer, and when the Kerry campaign complained, he said that he hadn't agreed to those rules and wasn't going to allow anonymous attacks. So it's hardly some clear-cut rule that people have the right unilaterally to designate things off-the-record.

Besides, even if that were an American rule of journalism -- and it isn't -- if she's speaking to the foreign press, it's her fault for assuming that the same rules apply. She's a very sophisticated person. She's a top aide to a leading presidential candidate. She is actually European-born herself. It's her responsibility to know the rules governing the reporters with whom she's speaking -- not the responsibility of reporters to protect her by changing how they operate to meet her expectations.

The mistake the reporter made was to take advantage of the difference to get an attention grabbing quote into the paper. She did not realize, and apparently doesn't yet, that doing so would make her look unscrupulous to American reporters and American sources. Since American sources have no interest in talking to unscrupulous reporters, she will have less access and has hurt her own career in the long run.

She made pretty clear that she has no interest in being a reporter who cares more about powerful people liking them than about doing her job. In other words, she's not Tim Russert and Tucker Carlson.

Just curious: is there anyone arguing that the Power remark shouldn't have been published who isn't an Obama supporter?