Media Matters

Radical transparency is a trendy concept in the world of corporate public relations…but not so much in the world of political reporting…until now. In The Case for Full Disclosure, Time Magazine writer James Poniewozik argues that journalists should put all their cards on the table…let us know who they’re voting for and where they stand on the issues. Instead of pretending to be unbiased, reporters should, “expose the sham of neutrality” and expose the lie that journalists are somehow able to remove themselves from the story. One problem, which Poniewozik freely admits, is that reporters may alienate half of their readers/viewers. And it will be much easier to dismiss a story as biased and unfair if the reporter is on record as a supporter of the opposing candidate/party/position. And what if we find that journalists are predominately Democratic or, more specifically, Obama supporters…would public trust and confidence in journalism and the political process suffer? Transparency will likely come slowly, if at all, to mainstream media which, for now, is using the “sham of neutrality” to differentiate itself from the sometimes rancorous and partisan political reporting found on blogs.

Samantha Power is no longer an adviser to Barak Obama. Another casualty of the war of words being raged in the quest for the Whitehouse, Ms. Power went a tad too far in her assessment of the Senator from New York–too far, that is, for a spokesperson for the campaign that is trying hard to avoid politics as usual.

As reported by The Scotsman, Power said, “We f***** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything.”

Even after issuing a public apology to both Obama and Clinton, and confessing to admiration for the former first lady, Power felt obligated to resign her post.

But what about this on/off the record thing? Journalists will occasionally conduct an interview off-the-record, at the request of the interviewee–if that is the only way the information can be obtained. Although information gathered in this manner is not available to be used directly, e.g quoted or attributed, the information can be used as background research. The Scotsman, the paper that broke the story, includes an explanation of their policy on off-the-record interviews at the end of their story. According to The Scotsman, an interview can only be considered off-the-record, “when the rules are established in advance.” Trying to withdraw a statement made in the middle of an on-the-record interview by saying, “off the record” does not make it so. And according to one source, Power should have known better. As a graduate of Harvard Law School and a journalist herself–who has written for Time Magazine, U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, The Economist and The New Republic–Power should have shown better judgment.

BTW, just yesterday Clinton’s communication chief accused the Obama team of “imitating Ken Starr.” When will the name calling stop?  😉