@John Cook: Well, since it's just us in here... how you doing? How's Allison? Giver her my best. Maybe we should double date next week! Okay, CHAT AT YOU LATER. #newyorktimes
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.
i'm with the naysayers: this is how news gets done. The proof is in what actually makes it into print. You work sources the way you work them -- some reporters are totally tough on people, and that gets them results. Others go for a softer approach, and that can work. Some suck up and don't do their jobs, and that is something you can see by comparing these emails to what gets printed. But also pointing out that email is not the only way reporters and sources communicate. What these records do not show is whether the reporter picked up the phone and called to complain or pressure or cajole or commiserate or whatever. Email is easily misconstrued, so a smart reporter doesn't put anything antagonistic in print - that just alienates the people you need. Also pointing out that a reporter can oinadvertantly use words or phrases that have a very specific meaning when it comes to a crime or scandal that they may not intend it to have. Running that stuff by people is not a bad practice. It doesnt mean you have to take their edits. But it's much better to consider wording options before it gets into print than to regret _ and maybe correct_ the next day. #eliotspitzer
@the_woog: While this is all true geneally, it doesn't necessarily mean Gawker isn't onto something in this specific case either.
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
@Sergio Hernandez: I agree in general -- but in the case of "the mattter" -- which I think the Times didn't use, though they also didn't use the prostitution scandal --
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
@the_woog: I absolutely agree. And as a reporter myself, I totally understand the intricacies and importance of "safe wording" and euphemisms and legal technicalities, etc.
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
@John Cook: As a general rule, does the Times permit its reporters/employees to comment on stories? I doubt, of course, that if the Times itself commented, it would say anything substantive anyway.
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
@Sergio Hernandez: No one cited company policy to me when they asked not to be quoted for the record. I recently queried a Times reporter on another matter and very quickly got an on-the-record response, though that may have been cleared with corporate. #eliotspitzer
@John Cook: Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you didn't contact the Times' flack, as well?
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
@Sergio Hernandez: i'm with Serge.
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
Well Gawker, think you've misplayed this one. The NYT comes across as courteous and professional - allowing the people they're writing about the right to reply and to confirm or deny rumours. You, on the other hand, come across as self-serving mudslingers. Perhaps the reason PRs give the brush off to bloggers is because of this sort of behaviour... #eliotspitzer
Well thank God for PR people and their devotion to not misleading newspaper readers! (ok, now I'm going to look out the window and see a flying pig? wtf is up with this day!) #eliotspitzer
This seems to me like Gawker, in its relentless (and idiotic) quest to demonstrate its superiority over the mainstream media, is intentionally misconstruing or just plain misunderstanding what goes on between reporters and the people they're writing about. "Can I do this" is, from my experience, a way of saying "is this accurate?" Or, more to the point, "You were there, I have information about what happened and I want to make sure I got it right. Is it?" Not even a misdemeanor. As for checking quotes and how to characterize someone declining to comment, I suspect that came from a background interview, in which the ground rules are usually, "I (the source) will talk but only for background. If you, the reporter, want to use any quotes, you have to check with me first." Not the ideal situation for any reporter, but sometimes it's all he or she can get. Either the Gawker reporter doesn't understand the way this works, or just longs for a world where all journalism is done the Gawker way, which is, "Report the rumor, and let the facts sort themselves out." That is what the Gawker founder/ceo said recently, right? #eliotspitzer
@oyboy: I might be a little harder on the Times. They really didn't push back at all. A good reporter would have definitely questioned that "ensnared in a prostitution ring" business, and actually not even have emailed that paragraph. Emailing copy, in any form, is a firing offense in most of the newsrooms I've worked in. #eliotspitzer
@cassandra: You've worked in some strange newsrooms then. Reading copy to a source over the phone or emailing a chunk of copy to check for accuracy is considered a responsible practice in many newsrooms.
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.)
@Gabriel Snyder: If by 'this' you mean reporters double checking with eyewitnesses to make sure that what the reporters are reporting is, indeed, what the eyewitnesses saw, then yes, it happens all the time. It should happen more. Also, if by 'this' you mean reporters going back to background and/or off the record conversations and asking sources to include quotes, yeah, that happens all the time, too and should happen more. What should not happen more is showing deference to those in power or caring more about a source's reaction to a story than the truth of the story. But I'm not convinced that's what happened here. I think this is a case of Gawker really, really wanting to show how hypocritical the Times is, when in fact the Times did a good job on this story.
@oyboy: The NYT got a great story with the Spitzer hooker scoop. No doubt about that. But for people who don't live inside the reporter-flack bubble, it's educational to see exactly how those interaction takes place -- and how it often is at odds to the image newspeople like to project. #eliotspitzer
@Gabriel Snyder: I agree with you. It is educational as well as interesting. I guess I just object to the tone of the item (or what I perceive the tone to be). Which is to say, presenting the times actions as not just interesting behind the scenes sausage-making, so to speak, but as evidence of rank hypocrisy and power-sucking-up-to-ing, which it doesn't seem to me to be. I long for the days when email exchanges between source and subject =really= got nasty and seemed to me to reveal something telling about both sides, like when the email between Dave Eggers and the reporter for the Times (kirkpatrick?) was put online. Now =that= was good stuff. Anyway, i guess it's better that Gawker errs on the side of putting stuff out there then on withholding stuff. #eliotspitzer
Dunno about all this. My first take is that the Times was being polite by asking but probably would have run what it wanted to run anyway.
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
@Mike Jahn: In this instance, though, the story did change to reflect the flack's wishes. Hakim's "can i do this?" graf went from:
"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
@Mike Jahn: I agree, and that was my first reaction to the "can i do this?" e-mail, too. Maybe Peters got a tip about how Spitzer told his staff and ran it by Anderson to either verify his info or fish for more details.
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
@Gabriel Snyder: i dont see how that change is a substantive one. the final text seems more concise. they are still a print medium--they have column space to be concerned with.
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
@Gabriel Snyder: The changed graf looks more like it was shortened for newspaper space reasons than for anything Anderson said. Notice that senior administration officials was shortened to top aides and the attribution was left off completely. And probably Hakim wanted a second source, and Anderson, his second source, wouldn't confirm that the governor said he was ensared in a prostitution ring. If there are two sources and one goes a little farther than the other, I go with the more conservative version, and Hakim played it safe. I mean, the whole story was about the prostitution ring. Just because Hakim cut it out of one sentence doesn't mean he was playing nice with Spitzer's people. #eliotspitzer
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
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
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