Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:32 AM
Sun Nov 8
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
11/05/09
No current or future story on Spitzer can ever hope to trump that NY mag cover that so sucintly and perfectly summarized his persona & M.O. back in March 2008. An image = one thousand words, and all that. #today
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
Um... okay. Did he have a backstory?
11/05/09
11/05/09
You'll learn more about reporting here than in four years of J-school. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
I find the exchange between Hakim and Anderson where she says they had discussed referring to the prostitution scandal as "the matter" particularly concerning.
There is a difference between checking how you paraphrase someone's words/actions versus negotiating how to report/euphemize a fact you have, presumably, independently learned/verified.
That decision should be at the newspaper's discretion, not the story's subject's. Given our limited perspective from these e-mails, no, we can't assume that the Times was actually influenced by what Spitzer's flacks wanted. But hey, j-ethics are, after all, like 99.9% about perception. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
to decide this accurately, one has to know exactly what the state of the case was at that time. Rumor? Fact? Had a law enforcement body called this a prostuitution ring? it was certainly a scandal, and everyone certainly thought this was a prostitution scandal, but it may have been that the lawyers involved hadn't yet called it that -- and the newspaper can't be in a position of leveling charges... hence the overuse of the word allegedly. I'm not saying that was the case here, but it's possible there was some question on the part of the reporter whether this at that point actually was a "prostitution ring" scandal -- so opted for safer wording. Could have been a mistress? Could have been a single prostitute not a ring? Deadline looming, you go for what you know is accurate, knowing there wil lbe another version of the story later where you can firm up these details. Reporting isn't quite as easy as people seem to think. You can't just write what you think is true and believe is true. You have to be able to prove it (or, at least that's what a good journalist does.) If that sometimes seems like a reporter is going easy on the perp, so be it. As facts come into clearer focus, there's plenty of time to come down harder. You don't want reporters in the business of speculation/predictive. At least I don't. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
But as you pointed out, we don't know if that was the case here. And the problem for the Times is that these e-mails now raise the question about how/why the paper made the call that it did.
Furthermore, it doesn't help that the Times (or its reporters, at least... has Gawker contacted the paper's spokespeople for a response, too?) won't comment.
For a paper so concerned with its perception and reputation, you'd think the Times would at least issue a stock line to back up their reporters' integrity, if not defend their methods/practices. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
But who knows, maybe since it's getting some substantial press attention, they'll feel pressured to give you more than a one-line dismissal? #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
It seems like kind of a win/win — in the worst case scenario, they won't say anything useful, or they'll cough up some PR spin to further rake them over the coals with. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
Due diligence: you call everyone, simply so they can't blast you and say you never gave them a chance to comment. The reporter's job is to get to the truth, and sometimes even the corporate schlubs have a little corner on it; curiosity should drive you, not a presumption that you know what they are going to say. And: It never hurts to have more information than less, and it gives you the delicious opportunity to roast them later when it turns out they lied or obfuscated or didn't know the truth etc. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
Hakim was checking to see if he got the details right about how Spitzer informed his staff. Turned out he was inaccurate. so good thing he checked with the source, a staffer to whom Spitzer broke the news.
(The changing of the language of "ensnared in prostitution ring" to "involvement" is certainly debatable.)
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
11/04/09
And a "do you mind if I do this?" is fishing for additional material. The flack could come back with "no no, that's not what happened, THIS is what happened," and then reveal something previously unknown to the reporter. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
"The governor told his most senior administration officials last night and this morning that he had been ensnared in a prostitution ring, a person present at the meetings said."
to the much more mild:
"The governor informed his top aides Sunday night and this morning of his involvement." #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
A lot of this seems like pretty standard journo/flack stuff, but it's interesting that the Times reporters would care so much about how the Spitzer/Peterson camp wanted certain details characterized in print
I guess such concern might be warranted if the Times had been paraphrasing or attributing any details to Spitzer or Peterson's PR camp, but it doesn't sound like that was the case.
And I really can't see any legitimate reason for why Peters would even "discuss" with Anderson whether the Times should call it "a prostitution ring" or "the matter." #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
and if it's because they took out the words "prostitution ring" I'm pretty sure those words in the the headline. on a1. above the fold. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
Although I noticed the NYT reporters were diligent with adhering to the rules of spelling, grammar, and the Times style guide. Oh, Times.
But more importantly, is Gawker going to continue doing this "FOILing e-mails between reporters and PR guys" thing? Because it's awesome.
11/04/09
11/04/09
It's like these two camps sat down and had a tea party over how to handle this 'scandal'.
Bring back the Watergate, the days when reporters did what they needed to do, personal (and presidential) injury be damned! #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
But. (Yes, you saw that coming.) To politely ask if it's okay to use said information after-the-fact is flat-out being a wussy. Especially if said information is not used in the article, after it was spoken freely and put on the record.
I have a feeling this is going to come out as an "affair to remember" between Spitzer's PR group and the NYT's -- and it's not going to be pretty.
The integrity of the journalists are going to be questioned. I know if they were in my office, I'd be tearing apart all of their files to see what else was conveniently left-out and/or smoothed over in their reporting.
Let's just hope it's not the end of "cut-throat" reporting by the NYT's. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09