Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:48 PM
Fri Dec 18
54 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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