I imagine Shelly Ross will be extremely furious with Christine Anderson for talking such smack behind her back. I never understood why people who work for government agencies that get FOIA'ed all the time still use their government e-mail accounts to say things they wouldn't want made public. #today
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
Checking facts is always good, but you don't send a verbatim quote from your story to a PR person and ask "can I do this?" Not even to maintain the relationship. A paraphrase of what you're going to say and a question like "is this accurate?" sure. Yes, I'm a reporter.
Whose idea was this little expose? Did one of these former flaks say to someone at Gawker, hey, maybe there's good stuff here ... ?
Just curious. Because the Spitzer people had a history of this type of behavior -- maybe leading people into saying embarrassing things, knowing that it would get public soon enough.
@Paddington: Actually, the idea came about when we were marveling at The State's work on the Mark Sanford story and we started brainstorming other governors with interesting sex scandals who might make for an interesting public records request. Eliot Spitzer's name, obviously, came up very quickly.
Anything in the emails about the original source of the story? A lot of talking about "scoop" and "broke" but isn't it more likely that the Times was fed this story by someone that wanted to cause some pain and suffering to Spitzer? And that that same person was going to feed it to any number of other outlets as well? #eliotspitzer
It sounds like you guys were expecting something very sensational and Hollywood-esque, like Danny Hakim telling the flack that her ass was grass and the flack calling him a parasite. That's not generally how reporting works in the real world. Not when you have a beat and work with the same flacks day in and day out. In a case like this, both parties realize that it's in their best interests to be civil and to at least give the appearance of trying to be fair.
I'm sure Christine had been dealing with Hakim for a long time. She knew that being nice to Hakim and occasionally granting his requests would mean a greater likelihood of him acquiescing on small things -- like changing "prostitution scandal" to "matter" -- and thus more favorable coverage. While Hakim knew that being kind to Christine wherever possible would mean he'd get more out of her.
It's a give and take relationship. Textbook case of quid pro quo. This isn't Hollywood. #eliotspitzer
The Times went too far, in this former tabloid sleazeball's opinion, by sharing the actual text of the upcoming story with the flak. You can read back quotes to a source, but that's it. But then he got an AMAZING amount of access in return for this clearly ongoing coziness -- the cell phone number of the mistress! No other reporter gave that much and no other reporter got that much in return. Covering politics is a constant negotiation. The ones who refuse to sit at the bargaining table end up paying the price.
I will say that one disadvantage of Times reporters is that they seem to cycle through these political beats so fast that they never have time to develop the bureaucratic sources within agencies needed to cut through the current administration's spin. They end up totally dependant on people like Christine Anderson and having to play ball like this. (This situation is not a good example of what I'm talking about, given the subject matter, but in general...) Also one quibble: he didn't really "ask" if he could call the mistress. He was really asking for contact info.
Is it wrong that I most enjoyed that Christine Anderson thinks there's a man named Ethan Ghetto walking this earth who isn't a rapper? Geto is still an awesome last name though. #eliotspitzer
seems like good reporting to me. By being civil, Hakim got the cell# of Kirton and an"I'll let you know if shes talking to anyone".
They broke the story, got the facts out,kept their sources intact for follow ups, and didn't have to be over the top sensationalist, Gawker style.
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
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
Just curious. Because the Spitzer people had a history of this type of behavior -- maybe leading people into saying embarrassing things, knowing that it would get public soon enough.
Just curious ... #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
OK. You are excused, then. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
11/04/09
I'm sure Christine had been dealing with Hakim for a long time. She knew that being nice to Hakim and occasionally granting his requests would mean a greater likelihood of him acquiescing on small things -- like changing "prostitution scandal" to "matter" -- and thus more favorable coverage. While Hakim knew that being kind to Christine wherever possible would mean he'd get more out of her.
It's a give and take relationship. Textbook case of quid pro quo. This isn't Hollywood. #eliotspitzer
11/04/09
I will say that one disadvantage of Times reporters is that they seem to cycle through these political beats so fast that they never have time to develop the bureaucratic sources within agencies needed to cut through the current administration's spin. They end up totally dependant on people like Christine Anderson and having to play ball like this. (This situation is not a good example of what I'm talking about, given the subject matter, but in general...) Also one quibble: he didn't really "ask" if he could call the mistress. He was really asking for contact info.
11/04/09
11/04/09
They broke the story, got the facts out,kept their sources intact for follow ups, and didn't have to be over the top sensationalist, Gawker style.
11/04/09