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.
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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
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.
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.
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.")
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. How come they didn't censor you?
Shhhhhhhh.
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.
Mayhill Fowler is at best a gossip columnist. To call her a journalist is quite a stretch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is Mayhill Flowers a journalist or not? I'm confused.
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.
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.
Thank you for giving authority and voice to what I've been thinking.
Mayhill Fowler is a paparazzo journalist.
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.
Thank you for the informed commentary. There's just one detail I'd take issue with. True, ethics "define how we are supposed to behave," but it's not necessarily true that they don't also tell us "how we are required to behave." Ethics are codes of conduct, and many such codes are quasi-legal in effect. Doctors, lawyers and others are licensed by state boards with authority to discipline and de-license for unethical conduct. Even the Constitution and all our subsidiary laws are just ethical codes derived from our moral and philosophical beliefs.
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!
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.
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.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
