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.
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