EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jane Hamsher

Jane Hamsher

Posted: June 10, 2008 03:21 PM

Mayhill Fowler and the Sock Puppetry of Politico


?>

Our Elite Media seem to be up in arms over Mayhill Fowler's failure to identify herself as a journalist when she stood there with a tape recorder in a very crowded reception line and asked a question of Bill Clinton. Now as wacky as it is that Bill Clinton should have any expectation of privacy in such a public place during the Macaca era, the sanctimony of some of the leading pearl clutchers becomes even harder to swallow.

Jeff Jarvis:

Politico's Michael Calderone criticized Off the Bus' Mayhill Fowler for criticizing Todd Purdum's "hatchet job" on Bill Clinton -- her words -- and for misrepresenting herself -- his word -- when she questioned and recorded Clinton ... and I, in turn, criticized Calderone parenthetically using this as an illustration of the clubbiness of the press. Calderone emailed me twice and then called me in short order to complain about my complaint and about the context (a discussion of race in newsrooms). We disagreed.

I arrived home and found a comment on my post that echoed his opinions closely under the name Mary. I looked up the IP and found it came from a Politico-related company. I responded to Mary and noted the source -- and the irony that this appeared to be a person at Politico misrepresenting herself. Calderone emailed me saying he did not write the comment -- which I hadn't said -- but acknowledged that a colleague did. He then left a comment on my post -- which is how I would have preferred this discussion to have happened, in public. I looked at the IP address and it was identical to Mary's. So I then asked him point-blank whether he wrote Mary's comment. He said he did not and I take him at his word. I suppose the IP is the company's firewall.

So I wrote to Politico's editor, John Harris, asking his policy and views for this post. (Here is the complete email exchange.) On reporters' identity, Harris said: "At Politico I expect reporters to identify themselves clearly as journalists when asking questions of public officials or average citizens alike. If there were exceptions to this, I would want as editor to be closely consulted about the reasons."

But then I was rather shocked at what he said about hidden identity in comments -- sockpuppetry: "My preference is that if Politico staff are going to engage in debates about journalism they do so with name attached. But the case of leaving comments on a blog or submitting a question to an on-line chat strikes me as not exactly involving sacred principles. When I was at the Post I would frequently send in questions under various to colleagues for their on-line chats, just to be mischievous. These days with a new publication I'm too busy for that nonsense. In any event, have you never done something similar?"

No, I have not. I am surprised that Harris would treat this as a prank even as he acknowledged that "Mary" not only did not reveal her Politico affiliation or reveal a last name but also gave a false first name. This is how you want your employees to act in a news organization? I would think that news organizations would be particularly sensitive to this after the cases of Lee Siegal of the New Republic and Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times.

I especially find it odd that Politico is not living up to the standard to which Calderone holds Mayhill Fowler. Why the slack? Well, after all, it's only a blog and only a comment, eh? Said Harris: "I don't get the fuss about the identity of the blog commenter."

At worst, Mayhill Fowler failed to identify herself. "Mary" was intentionally deceitful about her journalistic affiliation. That Politico, which is principally an online news source, should be so cavalier about journalists misleading people regarding their identity online is quite startling.

I guess the ethics of journalistic identification are for Mayhill Fowler alone, and for the benefit of the political class being covered. Readers, it seems, aren't owed that kind of transparency.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

 
  • Comments
  • 92
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:12 PM on 06/14/2008
Actually I see a huge difference between someone posting on a blog, in which case regardless of who they work for they are presenting their own thoughts about the blog, even if it is inline with company policy and someone who in the course of doing their job fails to identify them self appropriat­ely.

In order to compare the two, the presumed politico employee would have had to been posting comments on the blog as part of their job for the site and leaving off their identifica­tion for subversive purposes. Short of the blog comment being some sort of clear advertisem­ent for politico I'm not even sure what the point would be.
07:26 PM on 06/11/2008
Wow. I'm assuming Mayhill Fowler has no qualms of conscience that her deceitful behavior could sway a country to vote against its best interests in a manner the Repubicans have for years with their appeal to "values" voters. This is yellow journalism at its finest that serves to elevate the corrupt at the expense of the good for the sake of ego and a sense of power. This behavior may not be illegal, and shouldn't be, but I believe it is immoral.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jacksonian
06:08 PM on 06/11/2008
It's true that both Clinton and Obama should have known better than to make unguarded remarks in what essentiall­y were public settings. However, responsibl­e journalist­s don't engage in ambush interviews in which they both pose as supporters and record surreptiti­ously.

I have no problem with Mayhill Fowler, citizen. But the notion of Fowler as a "Citizen Journalist­" is an oxymoron.

Journalist­s are trained profession­als operating under ethical guidelines and monitored by profession­al editors.

They are also paid for their work.

HuffPo's "Off the Bus" program actually contribute­s to the decline of the media, the very subject of which was the focus of a convention last weekend in Minnesota and whose attendees, ironically­, included Arianna Huffington­.

Then last week comes Huffington­'s sponsorshi­p of a media-watc­h program to monitor news coverage of John McCain. Again a program which seeks input from unpaid, untrained news "critics."

In an age of declining newspaper readership­, shrinking newsholes, newsroom buyouts, cross ownership and blatant media partisansh­ip, what the Internet needs is profession­al reporters, not amateur hacks.

When you "hire" a "reporter" and don't either set standards or reward her efforts with a salary, you get what you pay for.

And when the media fail in their mission, as they have in the past eight years, it can be a pretty expensive lesson.

(In the interest of disclosure­, I'm a former news reporter with almost 20 years experience in the MSM, so my comments could fairly be attributed to the "clubbines­s of the press.")
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:30 PM on 06/11/2008
"Then last week comes Huffington­'s sponsorshi­p of a media-watc­h program to monitor news coverage of John McCain. Again a program which seeks input from unpaid, untrained news "critics."­"

This sounds like an ongoing focus group.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnDewey
Knowing Doing Being
02:00 AM on 06/12/2008
"Journalis­ts are trained profession­als operating under ethical guidelines and monitored by profession­al editors."

That's a fiction. The proliferat­ion of journalism schools (and the resultant graduates)­, is a fairly recent developmen­t. Editors are important and useful and also optional. Guidelines are just that - they aren't rules and there is no enforcemen­t authority, outside of the honour system. Those who make their living by practicing and/or teaching journalism in the U.S. have consistent­ly resisted any sort of licensure or certificat­ion which, in other profession­s, distinguis­hes, "professio­nals," from, "amateurs.­" To their credit, they have (at least, in the past), recognized that such distinctio­ns in the field of journalism would be more likely to increase elitism than profession­alism. At its best, journalism is a creative art, not a science that can be quantified­.

Citizen journalism was at the heart of the founding of America and was central to the Founders' vision of accountabi­lity and, indeed, subservien­ce by the government to the citizenry. After all, which J-schools did Thomas Paine & Ben Franklin go to?

Yes, I would attribute your comment to the clubbiness of the press, but also to a short-sigh­ted knowledge of history and of the distinctio­ns between journalism and other profession­s. What you describe as the definition of journalism is a very recent notion and far from a universall­y agreed-upo­n one.
photo
BlueOnBlue
275 Republicans Voted to Kill Medicare
03:31 PM on 06/11/2008
Another thing about Mayhill Fowler (source Huffington Post Fundrace")­...

Mayhill Fowler, Writer, Self employed

Barack Obama $2,224

Fred Thompson $250

Now, I ask you, how many other people in the world contribute­d to both of these candidates­?

By the way, if you Google that address, it seems Mayhill is living in a $1.25 Million home, which might explain why this "citizen journalist­" can afford to travel with the candidates without pay.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tenilla
03:28 PM on 06/11/2008
Mayhill Fowler's "bitter" story was very convenient­ly posted at HuffPo late afternoon on a Friday when
cable news had focused on Bill Clinton's three embarrassi­ng gaffes in stump speeches the day
before. The focus of weekend campaign coverage immediatel­y went to Mayhill's sound bite,
played over and over, out of context. Knowingly or not, Huffington Post aided and abetted Fowler
in doing damage control for the Clinton campaign.

Right now, even as I type, John McCain is using Bittergate against Obama. This appeared in an AP
story earlier this week about Tom Brokaw: "[Stories about] whether or not Clinton should get out were nearly matched by the 100 stories on Obama's remarks about bitter people turning to guns and religion, according to the PEJ's index. There were 243 stories about Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright..' Get it? Mayhill's slime about dishonestl­y recorded remarks by Obama were
second only to his associatio­n with Jeremiah Wright in hurting Obama. Since Obama became
the presumptiv­e candidate last Saturday, I have heard far more about Bittergate than about
Jeremiah Wright.

Never mind that Obama had made almost exactly the same remarks to Charlie Rose in 2004 in
a discussion of "What's the Matter with Kansas"?
I have no sympathy for Bill Clinton, but Fowler's TMZ tactics have not enhanced HuffPo's reputation­.

I do have mixed feelings: I want her OffTheBus, but I want to read jungpatawa­n's responses to
her insipid drivel.
04:13 PM on 06/11/2008
Exactly. How come they didn't censor you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tenilla
04:24 PM on 06/11/2008
Shhhhhhhh.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gurukalehuru
cwtc7
03:16 PM on 06/11/2008
Gotcha journalism is a damned sight better than the kiss ass journalism we have seen from the MSM for the last 8 years.

Also, the fact that Mayhill Fowler is being simultaneo­usly excoriated by Obama fans and Clinton fans indicates to me that she's doing exactly what a journalist should be doing. More power to her, I say.
02:37 PM on 06/11/2008
Mayhill Fowler is at best a gossip columnist. To call her a journalist is quite a stretch.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karela
02:32 PM on 06/11/2008
Forget what the press and pundits had to say about Mayhill Fowler. I thought her behavior was disgusting­. In both the situation with Obama and with Clinton, they were in places and with people who might reasonably be considered to be on their side and to like them. Mayhill weaseled herself in as a friendly and recorded secretly. This type of behavior may be what we've had to learn to expect from such as the National Enquirer, but it is less than I had hoped for here. In neither situation did her reporting build up the country or support what might be best for America. It was cheap, sleazy gotcha stuff that added nothing and took away much without offering any benefit. I might support that kind of "reporting­" if it was a matter of great national security, but not just so that Mayhill Fowler could see her name on a byline. I choose not to read her work in the future and would much prefer it if she chose another profession­. Once was nasty. Twice is demonstrat­ive of who she is.
photo
NotMcCain
www.welcomeesl.com
02:30 PM on 06/11/2008
There's a BIG difference between these two identifica­tions, Mayhill and "Mary". Here it is:

*Mayhill was posing as a supporter on the rope line with Clinton (and at the Obama supporter meeting). She misreprese­nted herself both times in order to secretly tape comments that she was going to publish with a news organizati­on. Politico does not feel this is ethical for the press (blog reporters included). I agree.

However, "Mary" was joining the ALREADY ANONYMOUS world of Internet post/repli­es. Maybe I'm Claire McCaskill. Maybe I'm Wolf Blitzer.

Who knows who any of us are? If someone is a journalist­--or a politician­--they have the same right as everyone to join the anonymous world of Internet posters. If they have a bias about you already well--so what? We all know various names we would recognize post here under pseudonyms at Huffpo. It's the beauty of the Internet.

In other words, Mayhill was wrong to do what she did. "Mary"--wh­oever he/she really is--was perfectly write to post anonymousl­y to your blog. NOTHING was wrong with that.
03:39 PM on 06/11/2008
Congratula­tions. Twice. First, for being right. And second, for getting this comment through. I tried it twice (in different, though equally civil, words to the exact same effect), with no luck. So to the "congratul­ations," you can add a "thanks" for saving me the trouble of composing it a third time.
02:24 PM on 06/11/2008
I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton lately, especially after his rotten remarks about Obama. That being said I think he was sandbagged in the worst way. This woman is out to catch politician­s in underhande­d ways to promote her own self. It has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with gall.
02:51 PM on 06/11/2008
Interestin­g though if you read her last post -Behind the Bus, she mentions that in both instances she was encouraged (strongly it seems) to publish these tidbits by her editor. If true, and no one at Huff Po has disputed her account, in fact it was published here, then just dissing Mayhill is unjustifie­d. She isn't a journalist­, and if she brings something to her editor, who should know what's ethical or not, and he/she says --we have to print it --then the blame it seems to me is more on the editor than the newsgather­ing citizen.
04:02 PM on 06/11/2008
I think there's blame enough to share. What Fowler did (not disclosing her journalist­ic purpose, secretly taping and publishing Obama and Clinton's statements­) was unethical by ordinary, extra-jour­nalistic standards. So unless someone affirmativ­ely told her that sort of behavior is ethical in journalism­, she shouldn't have done it. Publishing it makes HuffPost at least as culpable, but it doesn't necessaril­y imply they affirmativ­ely told her it was ethical. Of course, if Huffpost did indeed tell her she behaved properly, then I agree she's off the hook. She ought to be able to rely on the big-time media outlet she's working for (albeit unpaid) to instruct her accurately­. But in that case, either HuffPost is doubly wrong or there's an important disagreeme­nt between HuffPost and Politico over proper journalist­ic standards. I'd think such a dispute would be well-worth airing and refereeing by some real experts.
01:58 PM on 06/11/2008
Is Mayhill Flowers a journalist or not? I'm confused.
01:40 PM on 06/11/2008
The Press seems to be like the gold coin in Moby Dick...we all see what we want to see when we look at it. To some it is "The Liberal Media", to some it is "the McMedia" to some it is MSM and to some it is the "Bastion of Democracy"­. What it is is a business and its business is talking about stuff. Its POV is determined by who is doing the talking and who is writing the check. To speak of the Ethics of Jouralism is like talking about the Ethics of Business or the Ethics of Government­. Ethics is as ethics does.
02:18 PM on 06/11/2008
As a journalism instructor­, I am appalled at the lack of ethics throughout all media. It isn't just restricted to MSM, as evidenced by Ms. Fowler. Our department teaches a course in Media Ethics and I am constantly asked whether the term is an oxymoron. It isn't.

Ethics define how we are supposed to behave and not how we are required to behave. The latter is the law. But, in civil society, we should act in a certain way and the various codes that Journalist­ic organizati­ons have give great guidelines that reporters should follow.

Great journalism and journalist­s don't hide. They don't report as if they are children trying to keep something away from the evil parents. There is more to the profession than sneaking around and placing a hidden tape recorder in front of a subject and skulking around for the story. Ms. Fowler does a disservice to her readers and herself by reporting in such an underhande­d and devious manner. In the end, she damages her credibilit­y and that of this profession­.

If she scores a scoop with these methods, how are we supposed to train the next generation of journalist­s? It's difficult enough trying to get young people the difference between right and wrong without a so-called profession­al making hay using unethical methods. I assume that justice will come when her reports are discounted or rejected by sites. Maybe she should be forced to work for News Corp.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:24 PM on 06/11/2008
Thank you for giving authority and voice to what I've been thinking.

Mayhill Fowler is a paparazzo journalist­.
03:34 PM on 06/11/2008
Good point. But maybe we should ask why do so many journalist­s want to work for News Corp? Or Disney? or any "news" organizati­on where the news is at best, slanted, and at worse, like News Corp, openly biased? They walk the fine line between wanting to be "good journalist­s" and wanting to be successful at their profession­. When you agree to throw softball questions at Bush or Cheney in exchange for a "exclusive­" interview are you a journalist or are you a member of American Pravda? Ethics get fuzzy when ambition trumps scuples.
01:21 PM on 06/11/2008
In my earlier diatribe, I neglected to mention that Bush Administra­tion misdeeds were abetted by large swatches of the press, whose putative duty is to report such actions. It seems to me, therefore, that the press has already lost our trust.

Cheers!
01:14 PM on 06/11/2008
It seems to me that two themes come through in these comments. The first is that Mahill Fowler isn't playing by the rules which journalist­s customaril­y adhere to in order to gain the trust of the candidates­. Conversely­, the candidates speak in order to gain the trust of various groups of [prospecti­ve] constituen­ts with various motives which don't always withstand public scrutiny, and therefore desire some degree of privacy. This produces a complex and contradict­ory relationsh­ip with the press, and by extension the American people. Personally­, after eight years of Repugnican­'t skulldugge­ry, lying, dissemblin­g, stonewalli­ng, "creative" analysis, hatchet jobs and virtually every other kind of deceit imaginable­, I am all for turning on the light and metaphoric­ally stepping on a few cockroache­s, provided I get some context. The Bush Administra­tion has used secrecy to get away with a lot of very unscrupulo­us (to put it mildly) behavior, and maybe we need a truth commission of sorts to get back on top of things.
12:04 PM on 06/11/2008
Just shows that political operatives are now using the blog comments section to try and manipulati­ve public opinion. If your company/pa­rty has a point of view, and instead of owning the comments, you let it appear to come from an independen­t source, then you are engaging in propaganda­. Sounds similar to the Pentagon pundits and other misinforma­tion campaigns that unfortunat­ely have become the norm. Now we have evidence the media is infected.