Tucker To Journalist That Got Power Fired: "It's A Little Much Being Lectured On Journalistic Ethics By Someone From The Scotsman"

WOW: Today Tucker Carlson welcomed (er, "welcomed") British journalist Gerri Peev — aka "The Scot Heard 'Round The World" thanks to today's incendiary piece in The Scotsman wherein she quoted Barack Obama advisor Samantha Powers calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" — and the two mixed it up but good.

Tucker began from the presumption that Peev had deliberately printed a comment that was off the record; Peev maintained that anything was fair game after the parties had agreed to start and the tape recorder was rolling. Tucker thought Powers' request for clemency ought to have been good enough; Peev sniffed: "Are you really that acquiescent in the United States?" Then cameth the smackdown from Tucker: "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."

Due to satellite delay, the audience got a chance to react (i.e. mouth dropping open) before Peev did; watch for her arch "Really!" as Tucker keeps talking/insulting her. Responded 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." Ouch.

Watch it and squirm along with the rest of us below:

On MSNBC Friday, Tucker Carlson had it out with the journalist behind the Hillary is a "monster" story over journalistic ethics. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1446831610http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1178199204

Full interview at MSNBC here.

Comments

[TRichards]

While it's not helpful to find one's self on the same side of an issue as Tucker Carlson, the journalism was -- in fact -- gotcha journalism. The immediate "that's off the record" should have been honored despite the temptation to go with the "juicy" piece of gossip.

It is naive to expect sources to speak up when there is no human courtesy extended. When I was an auditor, I was often given information that I may not otherwise have found on background because -- within reason -- I would not use the information to hang the person out to dry via his quotes (though I would report on the findings once they were verified.) There was one exception. One individual told me that they were "carrying a difference in my head" between the amount in the cash drawer and the amount reported. That one went into the audit report with quotes around it and full attribution. There is a difference between being tipped off and being confessed to. Confessions do not fall into the category of "off the record."

By the way, the "monster" comment seems not inappropriate for someone who curries favor in a debate by claiming it an honor to be on the same stage as her opponent and who -- the next day -- compares her opponent quite unfavorably not only to herself but also to the Republican standard bearer. Then -- after calling his fitness for office into question -- the shape changer proceeded to describe a ticket shared by her allegedly unworthy opponent as "the dream ticket." Sorry. Shape-shifting schemers are, indeed, monstrous.

[Gerahufff]

Yes, but this piece by Peev is not investigative journalism. It's an election year, and the campaigns are covered like entertainment. Peev did her job. I don't think Powers should have been fired though. Nobody is shocked by her description of the opponent.

[rachaelisacancer]

Nope. Wrong answer. And anyone who studied journalism knows it.

Power's "off the record" meant nothing. If she wanted to say something off the record she should have waited to express that opinion when she was actually off the record. Real journalists don't allow "Off the record" to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. It just doesn't work that way.

But she's a great lady anyway and if Obama is president I'm sure she'll find a place to do good.

[sussex]

For those unfamiliar with the tough, uncompromising style of journalism practiced in Britain, I suggest you watch Hard Talk on BBC World. It more closely resembles the style of the long gone, great American reporters of yesteryear such as Edward R. Murrow than the milquetoasts who now call themselves journalists.

[rachaelisacancer]

Good call. It's a great program and I think if the majority of Americans even knew that the days of Murrow existed, they'd be drowning in tears at the beginning of "The Situation Room" each day.

[Duncan77]

The best are Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrey's. I often think if US politicians had to face these two they would be devastated. I can't imagine any US "journalist" asking a politician the same question 12 times just to get an answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

[JayFlanders]

The Scots Lady is right about being on the record, but Tucker is right about the Brit standards being lower. I've read stories, even in the UK Times that make the NYT piece on MCain look cautious. They splash loose facts all over the place and love the sensational. It's a pity about Sam though. She's very good. The country needs her on board.

mf.

[MichaelDeane]

Actually the Scotsman is a very good newspaper. It is not a tabloid in the classic Fleet Street model and for the most part, the reporters follow responsible journalistic practices. The ground rules of the interview had been set. The tape recorder was rolling and then Power called HRC a monster (an assessment which I personally agree with). I can understand Power asking for it to be off the record but the cat was out of the proverbial bag.

Some journalists who had an ongoing relationship with her might have respected Powers request for a mulligan but there was no relationship in place as far as I know. So the reporter went with it.

Carlson's attempt to humiliate the reporter just shows his own ignorance of journalistic practices and the fact that he lives and works in the rarified air of Washington DC where journalists cover for their sources, where journalists mix and socialize with their sources and in general where journalists fee that they are in the game as much as the newsmakers themselves. For a fascinating book on this check out Mark Hertzgaard's On Bended Knee.

[Londonliberal]

1. The Scotsman happens to be one of the most respected UK titles and this was never printed without the editors thinking hard about it.

2. It is, however, true that The Times is not what it was - hardly surprising, given its ownership.

3. It's a pity Power resigned (or was pushed) as the case may be. However far off the 'official' campaign line she may have been, she was only articulating what a great many people must be thinking.

[realpolitic]

The U.K. does have a sensationalist press, but a serious press who ask pointed questions as well. Our press, as a whole, have called in absent on the Bush administration and not attempted to hold it accountable at all.

[AxelDC]

Normally I find Tucker Carlson overbearing and insufferable. In this case, he actually makes a strong argument.

She may rationalize her reporting as "getting to the truth", but she lied to her interviewee. This means that future interviewees will be far less candid with her, knowing that she has lied before and has no integrity when it comes to journalistic discretion. She also furthers the image of journalists as sharks circling at the slightest hint of blood, with no regard for the damage they cause with their eagerness to get the scoop.

[dndobson]

How did she lie? According to the rules she stated, it's on or off the record before the interview starts. So if Powers began the interview ON the record, she may have wanted the "Monster" comment off the record after she blurted it out, but it was too late. She is right that Tucker's kind of journalism does not well serve the public. If the news only reported what politicians WANTED us to hear, we'd believe ALL the lies, not just most of them.

[bogtrotters]

I can't watch the clip. He whines like a third-grader denied a third piece of birthday cake. Oh, well--he DID struggle with poverty in his early years (without taking any of Daddy's million-dollar cane collection to a pawn shop). Admirable, for a twerp.

[realpolitic]

He probably took his dad's multi-million dollar hat collection to the pawn shop.

[Ookiecay]

I'm with Tucker on this one. I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't agree with everything anybody says. I think this reporter behaved in an unethical manner to push her own agenda. But then, there is a lot of that going around these days....

[realpolitic]

What agenda is that? Does printing an on the record comment indicate an agenda?

[jewforobama]

CONGRATS TO SAMANTA POWERS-YOU GOT IT EXACTLY CORRECT! OBAMA SHOULD GIVE YOU A RAISE!!!!

[ColinSF]

If Obama becomes President, I hope his first act will to cut ties with those meddlesome people in Canada and Scotland.

[AxelDC]

I hate to be so blunt, but that's just stupid. I'm an American living in Canada, and most Canadians support Obama for President. One stupid reporter from Scotland doesn't tar the entire nation.

At least that woman wasn't elected president twice, which is why the rest of the world has lost all respect for the US.

[babytomata]

Peev did a wonderful job standing up to Tucker. Not since Jon Stewart schooled him on Crossfire have I heard someone call this hack on his lack of investigation.

To actually say that if during an interview when you know you are being recorded that after you say something that you immediately regret, you should be able to say "off the record" and have that not reported is media censorship.

One thing to agree on ground rules before an interview - but we would never get to the truth of anything if a politician or public figure would be allowed to edit our access after they've had a chance to evaluate how a comment would be perceived.

[gonnuts]

That's right Tucker, whatever you do you don't want to offend the powerful people ... gee, otherwise you might actually be caught - ah! "reporting"!!!

How can we possibly learn the truth about anything if all we're only allowed to hear is what the powerful will allow Tucker and his ilk to report?

Whores - nothing but whores of the worst sort. At least you get some measure of comfort from a real whore deceiving you - here the M$M just screws us figuritivly.

I've come to the conclusion that 90% of what we hear on M$M we don't need to know and the other 10% can't be believed.

[shockedNawed]

Bingo, again!!

[eugenegerard]

Put a bowtie on her. They are both tools.

[Moncar]

Tucker Carlson, the juvenile lead among MSNBC's cast of Hillary bashers, is just too shallow to give any credence as a political commentator. About six weeks ago, I began switching him off after the Matthews screed before he can mouth the line I always associate with him, "Tennis, anyone?"
Certainly, the Scotch journalist must be getting hours of laughs at the local pub out of her bout with what passes as a journalist on this side of the pond.
More serious is the decline and fall of Keith Olbermann. Until 4 to 6 weeks ago, he seemed to be firmly in the Democratic column but essentially neutral in the primary race. Now, he's firmly in the Obama bag along with with everyone else at MSNBC. One can only imagine he got the memo along with his General Electric paycheck to climb into the bag, post-hast. Or, if your blessed with a more frisky imagination, you might wonder if Keith is auditioning to be Obama's White House Press Secretary.

[blackwell98]

"Tucker Carlson unintentionally reveals the role of the American press"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/08/carlson/index.html

[iPolitics]

Tucker schooled her. She wanted drama. She got someone fired. Hillary will have that effect on the economy, by the way.

[realpolitic]

Tucker schooled himself out of a job.

[UCOmid]

Good Job Tucker! That's a true argument. When sb asks you "off the record" it is so unprofessional to publish it. Because people say things "off the record" that do not really mean it and just use some words to schematically show what exactly the situation is. So Scotsman did like a tabloid without paying attentions to journalistic ethics