I’m hanging in the lobby of our hotel in Fayetteville with Biggest Guy, we’re both surfing the web and he brings up the video of McCain and the NYT reporter Elisabeth Bumiller. We watched it and I asked him what he thought – he enjoyed it, and thought it made McCain look good. Shockingly, I kind of agreed. I’ve mentioned the incident where Giscard d’Estaing blew off a reporter who asked him about his illegitimate daughter – at the time, I was focused on politicians erecting a wall around their private lives. Looking at the McCain video, I realize that a big part of it was a politician stepping out of the role of sniffing the rear of the press to try and ensure a good relationship and, hopefully, good coverage. Via Memorandum, I also see Glenn Greenwald making the same point from the other side – about the way that the US press is a willing partner in the coverage tango, citing Tucker Carlson interviewing the reporter for the Scotsman whose interview tubed Samantha Power.
Here’s the quote (but go over and read Greenwald’s commentary as well):
CARLSON: What — she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you’re interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn’t you do that?
PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that’s decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.
CARLSON: Right.
PEEV: Someone who’s ostensibly going to be an advisor to the man who could be the most powerful politician in the world, if she makes a comment and decides it’s a bit too controversial and wants to withdraw it immediately after, unfortunately if the interview is on the record, it has to go ahead.
CARLSON: Right. Well, it’s a little.
PEEV: I didn’t set out in any way, shape.
CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it’s a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the “Scotsman,” but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.
Don’t you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?
PEEV: If this is the first time that candid remarks have been published about what one campaign team thinks of the other candidate, then I would argue that your journalists aren’t doing a very good job of getting to the truth. Now I did not go out of my way in any way, shape or form to hurt Miss Power. I believe she’s an intelligent and perfectly affable woman. In fact, she’s — she is incredibly intelligent so she — who knows she may have known what she was doing.
She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It’s not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career.
See also Powerline’s dismissal of Power and the contentious interview with the BBC. I’m still digesting, and not sure I 100% agree re Power – but that’s real interviewing, not setting someone up for a puff – or hit – piece.
When I interview people, I say “this is on the record, but feel free to interject off the record comments if you like.”
That way, interview subjects feel comfortable speaking their minds without clamming up because they’re worried about saying something stupid. Only very rarely are any quotes actually off the record, so it works better for me and for them.
I appreciate the off the record quotes, though, because I can take them into account in my analysis even if I cannot publish them.
This description of British journalism seems at odds with how the British press addressed Prince Harry in Afghanistan. They balanced the public’s interest in the story against expectations of greater access in keeping a secret.
bq. Looking at the McCain video, I realize that a big part of it was a politician stepping out of the role of sniffing the rear of the press to try and ensure a good relationship and, hopefully, good coverage.
Hardly…he holds bbq’s for them and calls everyone “my friend”. The media’s mindless devotion and love does not come cheap or free. It’s no secret that he’s among the most talented and devoted media butt-kissers to hold public office.
This is simply another example of McCain losing his infamous temper, nothing more, nothing less. Your take is nothing more than the typical pro-Republican spin that accompanies such gaffes.
PD – place this in the context of my broader discussion of “journalists and citizens”?
Alan – yes, but…can you imagine for a moment Hillary, Obama (or Mitt) being willing or able to lose their temper at the media? I don’t hold this up as a ‘tell’ on McCain, just as an event that points up what two of us are reacting to in the relations between politicians and the media.
Note that I’m supporting Obama at this point…
A.L.
I’m not sure how this fits into a larger discussion of “journalists and citizens.”
If journalism was a profession, the rules of on- and off-the-record would be in some code somewhere. Perhaps the agreement would be in writing beforehand, aided by legislatively-mandated disclosures. Absent that, I think the press needs to act honorably to the interviewee, to their readers and to their countrymen. Most of what passes as justification — the people’s right to know — is thinly veiled self-interest.
I’m not sure the British reporter owed anything to America, but generally, I think he wasn’t fair to Powers. The public interest value of the “monster” comment was between zero and one. It wasn’t as if she had just laid out some corrupt scandal and then called off-the-record. I’m skeptical that he wouldn’t trade access for a less zealous stance if Powers were more important and/or more British, like Prince Harry.
Frankly, I’m not sure I get it. Surely a little hyperbole is acceptable, isn’t it. I mean, it’s not as if anyone thinks Power is actually comparing Hillary to King Kong. Probably more reptilian, like Godzilla… but you know, not literally. What sort of serious person would work for Obama given his inability to absorb a joke? It’s just way too serious to take seriously. Big strike against BHO in my book.
_But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it’s a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the “Scotsman,” _
In a Perfect World, Peev would have halted the interview and slapped Carlson silly as soon as these pompous words were uttered.
I don’t agree with Greenwald’s slant, but he called the press right on this one.
bq. Alan – yes, but…can you imagine for a moment Hillary, Obama (or Mitt) being willing or able to lose their temper at the media?
Of course I can. But then again neither Clinton nor Obama have a long history of losing their tempers under all kinds of situations, like McCain. Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of problem that grows with age, unfortunately.
I’d hate to have another person with this type of a short-fuse personality occupy the Oval Office (did you watch the video posted at Greenwald of Bush and the Irish reporter that you linked to above?). This is anger born out of thinking that you’re morally superior to everyone else around you and that to question that is unfathomable. As the last 8 years have shown us, this view is completely incongruent with the qualities of a good leader in a free, Democratic society.
And I know you support Obama, great. You also said you haven’t closed the door on McCain, if I’m not mistaken? If so, then your comments here can be taken for what they are.
“Better link to the video here”:http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/03/07/videony-times-to-mccain-why-are-you-so-angry/
Weekly Standard: “Samantha Power last week completed what might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type.”
The frightening thing is, until I caught myself, I was reading it and thinking “you know, since 2000 or so isn’t really all that… oh, wait, THAT movable type!”
McCain is known for losing his temper. So is Bill Clinton and Hillary. Both of whom have thrown monstrous rages at subordinates like Hollywood stars. McCain’s lashing out is usually based on his belief that he is both righteous and aggrieved in some manner, being “mistreated” in some way. It stood him in good stead in the Hanoi Hilton and has caused him many problems thereafter.
By all accounts he has NOT lashed out at underlings who simply have to take it like Bill and Hillary. And the video does not show the true McCain temper which is reserved for political supporters who disagree with him on policy. THEN he is really obnoxious and implies they should “shut up and follow” him the “commanding officer.” His Lettuce incident is one example: he said Americans would not pick lettuce even for $50 an hour, people in the audience at his AZ rally said they would (it works out to $100K per year before taxes) and he stormed off the stage in a temper.
Power’s problems IMHO stem from her “monstrous” ego and to quote Diablo Cody, “attention whore” personality. She wants to be “hip and edgy” like Tina Fey, and so courts publicity where reticence and discretion are advised. She appears neither bright nor worldly nor capable.
Someone like Holbrooke, or Albright, or Kissinger, or Feith would not have made that mistake. Which was solely done for ego and attention. That someone that immature and attention-driven would be Obama’s senior advisor on foreign policy speaks volumes to his own immaturity and weakness.
My guess, the interviewer simply didn’t like Power, who comes off as a spoiled and narcisstic woman who is also profoundly shallow. She likely antagonized the interviewer by name-dropping, status-marking, and other things I’ve seen women of her type do constantly.
Alan, sorry – no. I can well imagine (and have heard stories of) Bill and/or Hillary lashing out at subordinates. But never – ever – the press. Think about that one again.
A.L.
Well, perhaps you shouldn’t only rely on your imagination then:
“Bill Clinton Unloads on Press.”:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/23/bill_clinton_unloads_on_press.html
Or see how many hits you get if you google “bill clinton angry at reporter”
alan, that wasn’t temper – that was working the ref. And we’ll skip the point that I’m talking about Hillary, Mitt, or Barak. I’m interested how do other folks see that outburst by Bill?
A.L.
bq. alan, that wasn’t temper…
Well, the media characterized Clinton’s remarks as an “outburst”, justifiably or not. They’ve also done the same to Obama. Go look it up.
bq. …that was working the ref.
And aren’t you saying exactly that about McCain? That he was essentially “working the ref”:
bq. I realize that a big part of it was a politician stepping out of the role of sniffing the rear of the press to try and ensure a good relationship and, hopefully, good coverage.
“Losing your temper” can often serve the same purpose (as anyone who has played refereed team sports will tell you). You asked me if the Dems were “willing” to lose their temper, as if McCain does this intentionally. LMAO.
So let me try to sort out this mess: to achieve the berating of the press that you seem to think they deserve in some cases (no doubt) you have to appear to, or in actual fact, lose your cool? Which is it?
Either way, I see absolutely nothing to admire in a person who is asking us to elect them to an office filled with stresses and pressures far beyond those from the generally unctuous (to McCain) US press?
alan – actually, I’ll disagree. One of the things I’ve liked about Obama was his willingness to stand up to Hillary’s attacks early in the cycle (similarly, one of the things I worry about now is what appears to be his weakness in response to her attacks). Willingness to set boundaries and consequences for stepping over them is a good thing in a leader – a feature, not a bug.
And I think that the international view of America will be better both when they start seeing policies that make more sense coming from our leadership, and when they see the consequences of crossing our boundaries as potentially serious (see: Carter, Jimmy). To be honest, it may be that one candidate can do one of those things better and the other candidate the other – in which case it will be an interesting choice to make.
A.L.
What’s worse, becoming visibly agitated at the press, or walking away so that they can write that you are not answering tough questions? “Obama link”:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/03/726268.aspx
I used to wring my hands a lot wondering whether the Media were in the ‘News/Information’ business, or had they descended into little more than the ‘Entertainment’ business. Of course the salient word here is _business_… for-profit business, and that changes everything. Perhaps they were holdouts for a while, but now journalists are no more expected to play fair than their professional sports counterparts. What now passes for a fair and balanced presentation is to allow equal time for the polar extremes to vent on whatever issue prevails. It leaves the impression of a nation of philosophical and political extremists which I suspect is not the case; but it surely does seem to entertain us in the process.