@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
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
If someone says "off the record" and then goes on to burble all kinds of crap, are you bound by that, or DO THEY HAVE TO WAIT to see if you accept that condition? Because I've always believe that conditions had to be agreed to specifically before they could be binding.
Then again, that could explain why I'm not a journalist anymore. #spitzerfiles
@raincoaster: I generally speak up right away if I don't accept the condition. It would be kind of sneaky to hear them out, and then at the end of it, say "I never agreed to it anything!" #spitzerfiles
@raincoaster: I think relying on e-mails can definitely put journos in a difficult situation because it does (seemingly) strip them of their power/leverage when negotiating the terms under which they exchange information with sources.
Technically, I guess, you could argue that if the reporter never agreed to going off-the-record, the information is fair game. And a PR flack should, indisputably, be more prepared for this possibility than someone who is unaccustomed to dealing with press.
But as a practical matter, I don't think it would be useful for reporters to alienate a source (flack or otherwise) by pushing that angle too hard. Unless the story is compelling enough, I think most reporters would just take the hand they're dealt and try to negotiate the best/fairest compromise to give each party what it wants/needs.
@Sergio Hernandez: Yes, of course the question only comes into play when the value of the specific information is enough to make you think about burning the source. Even one who's just jumped on the stove naked.
Still, surely a professional PR or other journalist should be smart enough to send an email with "Off the record: agreed?" before sending the money shot. #spitzerfiles
A professional PR flack or journalist should know better. So if they submit a juicy tip before agreeing on its usage terms, I, at least, would be less hesitant to pull the "I didn't agree to putting this off-the-record, so thanks!" card.
That said, a PR guy probably isn't going to just send you something off-the-record unless you've already cultivated a relationship with him. Which means he probably won't assume he can just put something off-the-record unless he and the journo have established that norm.
In this case, I guess the Times employees who e-mailed John couldn't be too surprised if Gawker had gone ahead and published them anyway.
But it seems like Gawker does, pretty freely, grant anonymity to whoever requests it. So in a way, it's established a standard that tipsters have the upper ground in deciding "recordness," and Gawker will just have to try and negotiate more favorable terms than the tipster's. #spitzerfiles
Just to reiterate, Lila Kirton was working for the executive chamber at the time. She was a government employee. Gov't employees are almost always instructed to refer media requests to their press offices. I've had plenty of occasions where I called up a govt employee because I was writing something positive about them and they STILL made me go through their press office first.
I imagine Hakim -- who has covered Albany for years -- was aware of this protocol. And it also wouldn't surprise me if he and the flak, Christine, had such a longstanding relationship that it was implied in his message that he not only was seeking clearance to interview Kirton but was also trying to get her email or contact info. If not, why would the flak voluntarily cough up such valuable information????
As I've said before, this isn't Hollywood. It's a quid pro quo relationship, and it pays to be civil. I've known reporters who tried to push government flaks around and demand information with an attitude. Sometimes it works, but other times it just causes the flaks to hate you and to withhold very valuable information. When I covered dcpi out of Police Plaza a couple years back, for example, I remember there was one award-winning reporter who thought very highly of herself and would DEMAND information from the flaks (many of whom are ex detectives/officers). This being police plaza, the flaks simply shut her out. They refused to give her anything, and she ended up having to go to the police reporters from other papers to beg them for info/details. There was nothing else she could do.
Anyway, bottom line, it pays to have a civil relationship with the press officer for the governor you're covering. #spitzerfiles
@El_Gato: I guess everybody does their jobs differently. But the fact that you're so willing to accept the notion of asking a flack's permission to call the governor's ex-mistress just because that's the way it's done--meaning that's what the flacks demand--is a pretty good indication of how successful they've been at controlling the press in Albany. And if Hakim couldn't find Kirton, were he so inclined, without Anderson feeding him her numbers, then he had no business working at a newspaper. Also--what on earth is uncivil about looking up a phone number for a person you want to talk to and calling them? Would that have been some sort of affront to Anderson? It's madness to think that reporters are somehow being rude if they don't clear their reporting moves in advance with the people who are paid to control and manipulate them. #spitzerfiles
@John Cook: I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. Calling the press office is not a matter of courtesy. Most government employees are FORBIDDEN from speaking to the media without getting authorization from their press office first. In fact they could lose their jobs.
As a result, as a reporter, when you call most rank-and-file government employees for an on-the-record interview, their response is "Speak to the press office." They will NOT speak to you on-the-record until their press office gives them (the employee) permission to.
Once the press office gives that employee permission to speak to the media, then they call you back and talk on the record. It's not a question of decorum or being polite, it's a matter of government employers exerting control over what their employees say to the media. Because of this, reporters often have no choice but to go to the press office when they want to interview a bureaucrat.
The exception, of course, is when you get someone to agree to speak to you "on condition of anonymity." I'm sure you've seen quotes in newspaper articles attributed to someone who "spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media." In many cases, that's someone going AROUND their press office and speaking to the media without getting permission first (because they know that for whatever reason, they'd never be granted permission to say whatever it is they want to say). #spitzerfiles
@El_Gato: Wait! You're saying people can go "AROUND" the press office! But that's forbidden, isn't it? Gosh, I wonder what would have happened if Hakim had gone "AROUND" the press office--would he have gotten in trouble? No matter, state employees never talk to reporters without sign-off from the press office, except when they do. In any case, it's perfectly normal and reasonable for reporters to ask permission to speak to the ex-mistresses of the governors they cover because that's just the way it's done, and attempting to contact state employees without the advance approval of a person who is paid by the state to manage the press is always a complete waste of time. I understand that now, thanks for the insight into the mysterious professional bylaws of journalism, about which I clearly know nothing at all.
The reference to civility was in response to your point that "it pays to have a civil relationship with the press officer for the governor you're covering," which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It wasn't civil of Hakim to ask for permission, it was obedient. There's a difference. #spitzerfiles
@John Cook: Have you considered the possibility that Hakim wanted to get the woman's comments ON THE RECORD, and thus was following protocol?
Anyway, the bottom line is that Hakim's reporting practices -- which you consider obedient and problematic -- allowed him to break a story about a powerful governor patronizing prostitutes, which resulted in that governor resigning from office and ultimately earned Hakim a Pulitzer Prize. Obviously he knows what the fuck he's doing, and he's pretty damn good at it, whether you you think so or not. Good day sir. #spitzerfiles
Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 11/4/2009 3:47:58 PM
Title: NYT responds to Gawker piece on Spitzer coverage
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
From DIANE McNULTY, media relations, New York Times: Any suggestion that The Times went too easy on the Spitzer administration seems a bit absurd in this context.
Our goal, always, is to get the facts right. Dealing with sources responsibly and professionally serves that goal, and that is what our reporters did in this case. [www.poynter.org]
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
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
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
11/05/09
If someone says "off the record" and then goes on to burble all kinds of crap, are you bound by that, or DO THEY HAVE TO WAIT to see if you accept that condition? Because I've always believe that conditions had to be agreed to specifically before they could be binding.
Then again, that could explain why I'm not a journalist anymore. #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
11/05/09
So does receipt of the email constitute agreement? Or were they just plain blind trusting that you'd agree? #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
Technically, I guess, you could argue that if the reporter never agreed to going off-the-record, the information is fair game. And a PR flack should, indisputably, be more prepared for this possibility than someone who is unaccustomed to dealing with press.
But as a practical matter, I don't think it would be useful for reporters to alienate a source (flack or otherwise) by pushing that angle too hard. Unless the story is compelling enough, I think most reporters would just take the hand they're dealt and try to negotiate the best/fairest compromise to give each party what it wants/needs.
11/05/09
Still, surely a professional PR or other journalist should be smart enough to send an email with "Off the record: agreed?" before sending the money shot. #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
A professional PR flack or journalist should know better. So if they submit a juicy tip before agreeing on its usage terms, I, at least, would be less hesitant to pull the "I didn't agree to putting this off-the-record, so thanks!" card.
That said, a PR guy probably isn't going to just send you something off-the-record unless you've already cultivated a relationship with him. Which means he probably won't assume he can just put something off-the-record unless he and the journo have established that norm.
In this case, I guess the Times employees who e-mailed John couldn't be too surprised if Gawker had gone ahead and published them anyway.
But it seems like Gawker does, pretty freely, grant anonymity to whoever requests it. So in a way, it's established a standard that tipsters have the upper ground in deciding "recordness," and Gawker will just have to try and negotiate more favorable terms than the tipster's. #spitzerfiles
11/04/09
I imagine Hakim -- who has covered Albany for years -- was aware of this protocol. And it also wouldn't surprise me if he and the flak, Christine, had such a longstanding relationship that it was implied in his message that he not only was seeking clearance to interview Kirton but was also trying to get her email or contact info. If not, why would the flak voluntarily cough up such valuable information????
As I've said before, this isn't Hollywood. It's a quid pro quo relationship, and it pays to be civil. I've known reporters who tried to push government flaks around and demand information with an attitude. Sometimes it works, but other times it just causes the flaks to hate you and to withhold very valuable information. When I covered dcpi out of Police Plaza a couple years back, for example, I remember there was one award-winning reporter who thought very highly of herself and would DEMAND information from the flaks (many of whom are ex detectives/officers). This being police plaza, the flaks simply shut her out. They refused to give her anything, and she ended up having to go to the police reporters from other papers to beg them for info/details. There was nothing else she could do.
Anyway, bottom line, it pays to have a civil relationship with the press officer for the governor you're covering. #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
11/05/09
As a result, as a reporter, when you call most rank-and-file government employees for an on-the-record interview, their response is "Speak to the press office." They will NOT speak to you on-the-record until their press office gives them (the employee) permission to.
Once the press office gives that employee permission to speak to the media, then they call you back and talk on the record. It's not a question of decorum or being polite, it's a matter of government employers exerting control over what their employees say to the media. Because of this, reporters often have no choice but to go to the press office when they want to interview a bureaucrat.
The exception, of course, is when you get someone to agree to speak to you "on condition of anonymity." I'm sure you've seen quotes in newspaper articles attributed to someone who "spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media." In many cases, that's someone going AROUND their press office and speaking to the media without getting permission first (because they know that for whatever reason, they'd never be granted permission to say whatever it is they want to say). #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
The reference to civility was in response to your point that "it pays to have a civil relationship with the press officer for the governor you're covering," which has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It wasn't civil of Hakim to ask for permission, it was obedient. There's a difference. #spitzerfiles
11/05/09
Anyway, the bottom line is that Hakim's reporting practices -- which you consider obedient and problematic -- allowed him to break a story about a powerful governor patronizing prostitutes, which resulted in that governor resigning from office and ultimately earned Hakim a Pulitzer Prize. Obviously he knows what the fuck he's doing, and he's pretty damn good at it, whether you you think so or not. Good day sir. #spitzerfiles
11/06/09
11/04/09
Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 11/4/2009 3:47:58 PM
Title: NYT responds to Gawker piece on Spitzer coverage
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
From DIANE McNULTY, media relations, New York Times: Any suggestion that The Times went too easy on the Spitzer administration seems a bit absurd in this context.
Our goal, always, is to get the facts right. Dealing with sources responsibly and professionally serves that goal, and that is what our reporters did in this case.
[www.poynter.org]
#tips
11/04/09
11/04/09
"Gawker is to journalism what masturbation in front of a computer is to real sex between loving partners." #spitzerfiles
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