Fear And Loathing In Milbank

If only Hunter S. Thompson could weigh in on the debate surrounding Mayhill Fowler's latest news piece, "Bill Clinton: Todd Purdum's a "Sleazy" "Slimy" "Scumbag." Imagine Thompson, both pleasantly and belligerently drunk, cursing in some chatroom on the Internets. He would likely dole out his characteristic candor and call this conversation about journalistic procedure "a pompous contradiction in terms." Thompson decided that conventional journalism was just that and broke the "rules." Countless other publications that today we identify as the "mainstream" got their start much the same way -- the Associated Press and the New Yorker, for example. Thompson inaugurated his role by naming it: "gonzo journalism" -- a far better label than "citizen journalism," if you ask me. But instead of pegging Thompson as a traitor to the principles of journalism, observers, analysts, colleagues and fans made him one of the profession's greatest icons.

The point of introducing Thompson into this debate isn't to equate him with Mayhill (sorry, Mayhill, I mean no disrespect). It's that Thompson is just another example of how journalism changed, and should continue to change. The challenges presented by the digital age are numerous and huge, and reflection on Thompson's career forces us to get some perspective about the current debate over "rule breaking." His genius lay, in part, in personality, but also in his ability to slice through a scene and reveal its ethical, political, and personal layers using a novel approach. Journalism isn't and hasn't been a monolithic craft. The profession has a rich and varied history that often gets lost in defensive justifications of the status quo. We'd be foolish to think the rules being offered us have been indispensable and timeless.

When Mayhill Fowler pushed her way to the ropeline to ask former President Bill Clinton a question, she didn't have any radical intentions. And what she did, for all practical purposes, wasn't radical at all: a lot of people still felt the need to vet the presidential candidate who Bill Clinton was representing out on the trail. Nor did Mayhill's actions break any rules, not even journalism's rules.

For better or worse, as a well-dressed 60-year-old white woman, Mayhill looked like the average Hillary Clinton supporter. And Bill Clinton mistook her as such. Because of her appearance, Bill Clinton took the liberty of unleashing his characteristic -- and widely reported -- bad temper. Firmly grasping Mayhill's hand as we've seen him do with countless other would-be-voters over the last sixteen years, Bill let loose his vitriol about yet another public embarrassment. Though his ability to connect with voters in the past has made him one of the most popular and powerful presidents of the 20th century, during this primary season it has only made him seem more vulnerable and more desperate.

Less than an hour later, hundreds of thousands of people read Clinton's remarks at OffTheBus, a citizen-produced campaign news site here at the Huffington Post. Fowler transcribed his rage with the aid of a recorder. She did exactly what we ask of our "citizen journalists," and perhaps more importantly, what I'd like to think we expect from ourselves as citizens.

Events like Bill Clinton's rally serve an important purpose; they are opportunities for us to meet our leaders and to ask questions and get answers. This particular event served an equally important goal: Bill Clinton played the role of Sen. Hillary Clinton's surrogate; he was the trail representative.

It's important to remember that the former president staged this rally as a press event. He -- and Sen. Clinton's campaign -- orchestrated and stage-managed the rally to get out a pre-fabricated message. But just think of all the attendees over the years who found themselves the poster children for campaigns and politicians simply because a campaign photographer liked how they looked. Maybe, just maybe, the digital age is leveling the playing field.

So, if the media, and the citizen media, actually show up and Bill starts talking, there's no debate. Any journalist who overheard Clinton answer Mayhill's question could have posted this news item. Anyone else could have trained his/her recorder, videocamera, or cellphone on him for those two minutes. And why shouldn't they? It was a public event hosted by a former president and, for all practical purposes, EVERYTHING was on the record. Where Clinton stood -- at the ropeline or on stage -- should make no difference. Who asked him the question -- a member of the press or of the public -- should make no difference. And who reported what he said -- the public or press -- should make no difference.

That Bill Clinton talked out of both sides of his mouth, telling two tales to two audiences reveals a lot about him as a man and as a leader. Perhaps more to the point, his confidence in his ability to read the situation reveals more about how our media, politicians, and democracy operate. Evidently Clinton never considered that Mayhill could be a Democrat, perhaps a supporter of Hillary, as well as an engaged and critical citizen simultaneously. It's the possibility of a similar combination of traits that made the controversy over an earlier Mayhill story -- the controversy now known as "Bittergate" -- a bitter pill for many to swallow. Mayhill is an Obama supporter. She has been from the beginning and has never hidden that fact. The questions many asked and the comments many made after she wrote the "Bittergate" story were variations on: "How could an Obama supporter report comments by the candidate that could hurt him?" "She MUST be a covert Clinton campaign operative!" Claims like these demand that we ask ourselves when and why the primary process became about unfailing declarations of political loyalty instead of an opportunity to consistently and persistently test potential leaders. (**see update clarification below)

But the debate about Mayhill's reporting continues. Some journalists don't think Mayhill should be able to have it both ways. She can't be both a citizen and a journalist. And that's why they insist she broke some rule.

Another lingering question is whether Mayhill should have identified herself as a reporter before asking any question of Bill Clinton. If she did identify herself that way, the former president probably would have used different words -- not "sleazy" "slimy" and "scumbag." Ironically, reporters have always maintained that they have special access to the truth that the public needs. And this is true. They can ask questions directly of the U.S. president, members of Congress and state leaders, and celebrities. But this situation demonstrates the opposite principle is at play. As a unique breed of citizen journalists emerge, the public actually has access to the information that the conventional reporters and the codified gaggle attached to the Washington echo chamber do not. Thank God.

Other OffTheBus correspondents are carving out this genre. M.S. Bellows, Jr. dials into the McCain and Obama campaign press calls and reports on the ensuing dialectic between press and spinmeisters. Christine Escobar goes national with news from Illinois and analyzes the impact Obama's campaign has made on local politics. Perhaps the only gonzo citizen journalist we've got, Chip Collis, is journaling his experiences as a father and Obama campaign fellow who relocates to Ohio for a summer. Unlike Thompson, Chip's smoking only cigars -- as far as I know.

The lessons we learn from Hunter Thompson is that journalism evolves, sometimes because people doing it break the rules. Calling foul when there's no infraction is not the way to transition us to the digital age. And holding the press to different standards than the public isn't either. (To the reporter at Politico who found herself in a "compromising position":

"This was the first time I've ever commented on a blog and I ended up embarrassed at work as a result, which leaves me questioning whether it's worth it to join in on the great democratization of media.

Now that I realize anything I say can be escalated to my boss -- without any obligation to contact me first -- I think I'll be staying off the Interwebs for a while."

No one else has succeeded at finding the ends of the earth! Good luck to you!) Our best understanding of the Clinton rally actually may come from juxtaposing Mayhill Fowler's take on the Clinton rally in Milbank to that of the AP reporter at the event. What we get are two different views of the former president.

If I were working at a traditional news outlet, say the New York Times or the Des Moines Register, as a managing editor, I'd ask myself, "What can we do so that the Mayhill Fowlers of the world call us?" After all, Mayhill didn't have to turn her story over to OffTheBus. She could have published it on her blog. Or sold it. But she chose to call us, and professional editors were ready and available to analyze the situation and edit her story.

If you're one of the Mayhills of the world and happen to see or hear something you believe the public has a right to know, just call [phone] or email [e-mail]. Or, join the team and start reporting from the trail.

**Update: I think "Bittergate" raises really important questions about the future of reporting. It's a different case than the Bill Clinton / Milbank story. In bringing it up here, I'm only paralleling peoples' tendency to treat Mayhill as a "traitor." I'm not saying that the questions raised by Bittergate aren't worthy of debate.

Comments

[goodnrg]

There's a difference between a Thompsonesque style and method of reporting and that Fowler does. When you mug someone, that's breaking the rules, not extending the boundaries of human interaction. What Fowler does is the journalistic equivalent of a mugging.

[westtexasboy]

Well, imagine the older Hunter Thompson falling face-down asleep in mid sentence,

[PaulPeete]

As an offthebus citizen journalist and Obama supporter, I immediately knew the recording in San Francisco would have an impact on the Pennsylvania primary. I believe Obama worded poorly a plausible reason rural voters use narrow issues to select their leaders, ut rather than anger at the scoop, I only wished that I would have been the one to break the story.

The MSM sold us without question the Iraq invasion criteria. We citizens need to be vigilant to track and understand the politicians who are determining our destinies.

[lolola]

I'm sorry, but the reason that I have serious problems with Mayhill Fowler is certainly not because I have an abiding, commitment to traditional journalism. I do however have an abiding commitment to honesty and ethics in general. I turn to alternative media for unusual, critical, diverse perspectives, and yes, gonzo is good too. As long as it's honest. I think that Hunter S. Thompson was an evil genious precisely because he cut through the 'professional journalism' crap and presented a revolutionary honest in-your-face reminder that there is no such thing as complete objectivity. But, hey, I'll take crazy political blowhards too, as long as they are not misrepresenting themselves.

Let's look at how Fowler represented her question to Clinton in her article: She writes: "I asked him if Purdum's much-commented upon Vanity Fair story was weighing on his mind." We know from the tape that that was not at all how she put the question to him. She asked him how he was reacting to the 'hatchet job' that everyone was talking about.

This is the real problem with Fowler. She misrepresents. This is not a challenge to right-wing framing or to the mainstream media. It is a cheap copy of it. And as we've seen twice now, it fits right in.

[S1m0n]

There are problems geat and small plaguing Goerge Bush's America, but one of them is the FAR too-cozy relationship between many political figures and the press. Fowler is on exactly the right track. Up and at 'em!

[jungpatawan]

Injecting my story into the story in true gonzo fashion:

I'm a recovering politician, but back when I was home-brewing the Kool-Aid, I used to classify reporters in three categories. Good reporters, useful idiots, and just plain idiots.

Just plain idiots I avoided like the plague. They would get press releases like everyone else, and canned responses to follow-up questions, but never would they get background, exclusives or sit-down interviews.

Useful idiots would get all of the above, but they were never good enough at their jobs to do more than take you at your word. The Bush Administration THRIVED on useful idiots.

With good reporters I would cultivate a symbiotic relationship. The pas de deux was enjoyable, the rules understood and long relationships ensued. That aside, if they could nail you, they were gonna.

The politician side of me does not know where to slot this concept of citizen journalism. And maybe that's what has everyone so up in arms.

Chip S. Jungpatawan

[hokulele]

Hendrix: I'm the one that's gotta die when I die, so let me live my life the way I want to."

[hokulele]

Hey, Amanda

While it appears from your pic that you weren't around when Hunter was around, that is, in his trippin' prime, nevertheless, as a 60s guy, me that is, I liked this article and you are spot on with your remarks. Nothing is hidden anymore. Anyone who doesn't get that, get what they have coming to them for their lapse in what's happening today. Hey, Bill, it ain't the 60s anymore.

I'm deeply sadden about Tim Russert's surprise death today. As someone who will be his age in a couple of months, I can relate to I think it was Keith Olbermann's remark that we never know when. Also, Jimi Hendrix's remark: "I'm the one that's going to die when I die, so let me live my life the way I want to."

Tim Russert was such a man. So smart and at the top of his profession. I look forward to the young people coming up who, while not being Mr. Russert, can bring us the great pictures of politics that he did so well. Maybe you, Amanda.

[Tomlastliberalleft]

I'll never understand why people want to give public figures some special "cone of silence" when there is no obvious need for an off the record comment. That was one of the things HST tried to bring forward throughout his career, namely, stop treating these people differently. If it turns out Bill like to chase skirts and cannot control himself, then it is better to know that no matter how it comes to the publics attention. Nixon liked to swear like a drunken sailor. Bill likes to run at the mouth with one of the worst non-denial denials every issued. Politicians of Bill's age ought to know better, that he still doesn't get it speaks volumes about the man and his inability to exercise self-control. That alone gives the story legs to stand on.

[marla219]

My problem with Fowler's "reporting" is that it's the journalistic version of realtiy tv, pretending to be immediate and unflitered, but actually skewed, edited or provoked for maximum effect.

Obama's particular words were taken out of context, with no attempt to understand his fundamental position. I was forced to find more detailed accounts of the event through people who did use their own blogs to flesh out the scene. Fowler's accounts of the Obama campaign were thinly veiled hit pieces, the guise of the citizen journalist allowing the injection of all the negative tropes of elitism, effetism and sexism as "merely the opinion of this reporter". They didn't serve the public debate.

Bill Clinton has frequently gotten off message. Fowler encouraged him to get salty. She asked him about that "hit job" in Vanity Fair to get her own hit job on the man. Is it news? Sort of. Is it "fair" to hold public figures accountable for their words? Sure. Is it ethical to encourage them to speak unguardedly in order to get a scoop? I don't think so. Fowler's intent wasn't "radical", but it was unpleasant. We already knew from the campaign rebuttal what Clinton thought about that article; no real news was reported, only salacious wording. If this is the future of journalism, it behooves the new citizen journalists to scrutinize their own ethics and be open to the public about their methods, otherwise they are contribuiting to the tabloidization, not the democratization, of the media.

[Freemind42]

good analogy. I think that Hunter S. Thompson was a pioneer in his time. He is the reason that I feel inclined to know the truth of the world around me. The evolution of journalism, just like the evolution of any subject, is premised in breaking the "rules" of the status quo. Ms. Fowler and Mr. Thompson are both phenomenal researchers of the truth.