I'd like to see the context in which she uttered that comment. I mean, if she called Clinton a monster in the middle of a diatribe about the dirty campaign tactics of her campaign, then I think the reporter was correct in keeping her comment on the record.

However, if 99.9% of the interview had to do with foreign policy and Power happened to let slip her frustration about Clinton, I don't think it's ethical of the reporter to post the comment. If anything, it serves to mischaracterize the tenor or substance of the interview. It's kind of a bait-and-switch; what readers should be gleaning from the article is Power's articulation on Obama's foreign policy platform, not what she thinks about his opponent.

I take your points about Russert and our press corps (why else would I read your blog?), but if (and only if) Power just had a sort of Tourettes moment in which she randomly blurted out something she wished she hadn't said, the reporter should have forgiven her. I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, you're never going to get the public figures to say anything candid if every little brain fart is published.

Of course, the real reason she got fired might have been over her more interesting comment--her claim that Obama's date-certain withdrawl is a best-case scenario. Loose lips sink ships.

I wonder, Glenn: did you reply to the well-known journalist who emailed you and inform him that his unilateral "off the record" notice held no standing without your prior agreement? Did you let him know your decision whether or not to publish his comments had strictly to do with your own judgement as to the value of publishing them?

Our exchange didn't end well. I didn't share with him that I was considering publishing what he wrote. Had I wanted to, I would have just done so. I have no doubt he'll read what I wrote here and that will be his notice that the "OFF THE RECORD" designation was pointless.

This is of course is why we get no real coverage of the Rosen and Weissman espionage trial or the murderous policies of Israel in Gaza. It's time to bust the media trusts or at least to demand affirmative action where our air waves are concerned.

http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-it-time-to-bust-corporate-media.html

Let me add that the press "are servants" of the powerful, as I said in my previous comment, only because they put themselves in that role. An independent press truly is equal to the powerful, as they stand up and reveal the hypocrisy and lies and criminal actions of those who claim to serve us. But, by their passivity, laziness, flattery, and collusion, the press surrender their independence and accept their servility with happiness.

I agree with all you say. I watch BBC World plus Panorama and Question Time on my computer. UK journalism has four parts: the solid fact based stuff, the grubby and wacky tabloid junk honed to a fine art by Rupert Murdoch's minions, the fact free adverserial stuff against the government of the day and the solid journalism and opinion with a bias a la The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent (especially Robert fisk on Iraq).

Tucker lived up to his billing as a vintage a**hole who pretends to be asking serious questions. Of course we have serious journalists ( Dana Priest and Walter Pincus come to mind) but on the whole we have celebrity types who have sound byte type answers to the most complex issues.

Finally: Samantha Power found, to her regret, that British journalists cannot be browbeaten. Her performance on HardTalk had her making compromises on behalf on Sen Obama about Iraq that flew against the candidate's well known position on Iraq. With supporters like this it is no wonder that his campaign has had a few bad days. And having a foul mouth is hardly a plus.

I have said this before: both candidates have had more problems because of the inability of their supporters to reflect the attitude and value that the candidate espouses. Instead they feel free to rant and rave. Ms Powers was caught, literally, with.....

As you point out, at least Tucker Carlson was honest about how members of the mainstream press in this country are "supposed" to function - as paid ass-kissers of the powerful. While it's important to continue exposing this in the political realm, I would love to see some analysis of how it plays out in financial reporting as well, since the effects are equally insidious. In both cases, MSM outlets are little more than cheerleading sections. Please keep up the excellent work.

lol, finally more Americans are seeing how the wool is pulled over their eyes. I _always_ get my info first from the international press. I knew that the dot-com fairy tale was doomed to end, and promptly sold all my stocks months before the crash to buy a house. I knew from the get-go that Bush/Cheney always intended to invade Iraq no matter what -- even if Powell blindly believed they wouldn't. I knew this country's finances would be going down the toilet even when the Dow was shooting over 14,000, so I used the housing boom overvaluations to lower my rate to a 30-yr at 5% with no points. People who only read the American press -- 95% of the population -- are getting screwed big-time.

I support Samanta Power

I'd like to see the context in which she uttered that comment. I mean, if she called Clinton a monster in the middle of a diatribe about the dirty campaign tactics of her campaign, then I think the reporter was correct in keeping her comment on the record.

Why do you begin by saying you support Samantha Power, only to then say that it all depends on the context and you don't know the context?

You can go read the full article. I linked to it in the first paragraph. There are countless quotes from Power about the desperation of the Clinton campaign, the unfair tactics they've used, the pandering, etc. That was clearly a major topic of the interview. Why should the reporter delete from the record something she said just because she decided afterwards that it would be better if she hadn't said it? You think political figures should have deletion powers over their own comments?

Does that apply to George Bush, too? If he's giving an interview and blurts out something that is embarrassing and misguided, do you think reporters should honor his request not to publish it? I think that those sorts of comments often provide the most insight and truth.

However, if 99.9% of the interview had to do with foreign policy and Power happened to let slip her frustration about Clinton, I don't think it's ethical of the reporter to post the comment. If anything, it serves to mischaracterize the tenor or substance of the interview. It's kind of a bait-and-switch; what readers should be gleaning from the article is Power's articulation on Obama's foreign policy platform, not what she thinks about his opponent.

You actually think that if Samantha Power blurts out some remark that is off-topic, and the reporter publishes it, that's the reporters' fault and not Power's? Just asking: are you an Obama supporter?

I take your points about Russert and our press corps (why else would I read your blog?), but if (and only if) Power just had a sort of Tourettes moment in which she randomly blurted out something she wished she hadn't said, the reporter should have forgiven her. I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, you're never going to get the public figures to say anything candid if every little brain fart is published.

Wouldn't you want to know if powerful officials are prone to "Tourettes" moments? And, just as Peev said, it's not the reporter's role to act as God and decide who should be "forgiven." It's the reporters role to report facts. It's up to the public to decide what to make of those facts.