Samantha Power, Ethical Journalism and Truth: To Quote or Not to Quote?

In every journalist's life there are moments that define him or her. These are moments of extreme temptation, selfishness and/or honesty. For The Scotsman reporter Gerry Peev, publishing an "off the record" remark made by Samantha Power -- Obama's senior foreign policy advisor -- was one of those moments.

Peev had to chose between garnering enormous publicity and respecting a basic principle of journalistic ethics, simply by choosing whether or not to publish an "off the record" quote. This is what thousands of journalists face on a daily basis; they interview people who make mistakes and ask the interviewer to leave out things that they don't mean or simply realize was incorrect. Journalists then leave out those phrases. That's why sources trust journalists; why they open their hearts and share their information with them.

For many journalists, "off the record" has a very simple and definite meaning. When a source says something - even in an "on the record" interview or conversation -- and corrects him or herself promptly, emphasizing that they didn't mean it, it is understood as unethical to quote that remark.

Ms. Power, who is a talented and terrific scholar but unfamiliar with this sort of destructive journalism, simply complained about the campaign's situation, making a remark that does not match her personality, her record or even the context of the interview. Peev didn't ask why she called Senator Clinton a "monster" and did not ask follow-up questions based on it. Why? Because, when Power said "off the record," the meaning was clear for both parties.

I imagine that when Peev returned to the newsroom and shared the story with her editors, they gave in to the temptation of gaining a huge amount of publicity by quoting that remark -- and disregarding the basic ethical rules of journalism. Simple as that!

So what Peev reported has nothing to do with the truth. The truth is what Samantha Power courageously said about Hillary Clinton soon after Peev's article was published:

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor to the Obama campaign effective today," Power wrote. "Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

When the Scottish journalist was asked by an MSNCB anchor why she was printing something that was said off the record, she responded:

"Because I don't know what the convention is in American journalism, but in Britain here we have very firm rules about the fact that generally you establish whether a conversation or interview is on or off the record before it actually happens...we are not in this business to self-censor ourselves; we are in this business to print the truth."

What Peev does not get is that there are some rules and codes that do not belong just to a country or a group of people, but are rather universal. Scotsman editor Mike Gilson ignores this fact when defending his publication's use of the "off-the-record" quotes:

"The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms. Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp."

The editor simply tries to blur the rules that the whole profession of journalism is based on, using the excuse of it being a "matter of public interest," which is misleading and shows poor judgment on his part.

That's why Samantha Power's resignation over her comments made to the Scotsman that Senator Hillary Clinton was a "monster" raises questions about the ethics of journalism, the rules and codes that the whole profession is based on.

Although there are many journalists who unlike Peev abide by journalism's code of ethics, such an event damages the image of journalists and further exacerbates the difficulty that the media has had keeping people's trust in the past years.

Samantha Power will continue her service to society, but what happened to her is nevertheless truly regrettable.

 

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[JacobSinger]

02:32 PM on 03/14/2008

OH NO, gotta call BULLSHIT on this one! You're trying desperately to find a way to spin a perfectly reasonable situation into a snafu, and from what I see here in the comments, the majority isn't buying it.

Powers tried to call it after the fact--too bad, too late. It's a hard lesson, but I bet she won't forget. And neither should you.

[Phaedrusnyc]

12:54 PM on 03/14/2008

One of the very first things anybody in any journalism class in this country learns about interviewing people is that anything PREFACED with "off the record" is off the record- and that assertions that a statement is off the record AFTER the statement has been made are fair game. This has long been the standard, and certainly anyone used to dealing with the press (as Ms. Power should be) knows this. If that standard has become "confusing", than it is only because reporters have become TOO cozy with their interviewees and are letting them get away with it when they shouldn't. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Power's comments being reported in the manner that they were.

[LordKelvin]

11:26 AM on 03/14/2008

Mr. Memarian you wrote

“The truth is what Samantha Power courageously said about Hillary Clinton soon after Peev's article was published:”

Far from being COURAGEOUS the “distinguished Professor” cum journalist is either a CONSUMMATE HYPOCRITE or supinely timid to stand up for her conviction.

Indeed, after her crass exhibitionism of opinion, garnished with foul language she writes,

"Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign”.

What is the TRUTH? POWER’S OFT-STATED ADMIRATION or as she puts it The MONSTER THAT IS HILLARY?

Is that courage or is it the proverbial canid returning to its disgorgment?

COGITO, ERGO SUM

[UCOmid]

11:43 AM on 03/14/2008

I think people have the right to make mistake. Journalists are not "hunters". They can understand that sb can say something and correct himself or herself promptly. Especially when they are saying something under an enormous pressure. That's a matter of responsibility. You can believe and apply this sort of responsibility or not into your work or not. That's a choice for journalists. What people bring up as the counter argument is another approach to journalism as well.

[valleygent]

02:40 AM on 03/14/2008

Obama needs to come out swinging once and for all, and cut this race baiting, man-hating, militant feminist down to size, forget the wimpy apologetic stuff. She is the antihesis of what America is, and should be. She is a plague sent up from hell to punish reason. Frankly, she is a GW Bush in woman's clothes. I love and admire strong intelligent women, not Monsters on estrogen bent on gaining power through the facist playbook. Give me liberty or give me death! To hell with a Clinton Presidency, I don't even want to see her puckered face ever again on my television screen.
Millions are thoroughly disgusted by the whole process she has now poisoned. Are you happy now Clintonista's? McCain will be the next President for sure. Perhaps that is best.

[bauersox]

10:46 PM on 03/13/2008

When sources speak to journalists, they stipulate that something will be off the record *before* they say it, not after.
How can you describe yourself as a journalist and not know that?

[pundit27]

12:18 PM on 03/14/2008

Vitually all the print journalists I have worked with would agree with Omid . . . . That there is little professional standards consistency in today's global journalism is yet another reason why the MSM is in such bad shape on so many fronts these days . . .

[MercedesGabriella]

08:34 PM on 03/13/2008

If you want something to stay "off the record" you say this BEFORE you drop your bombshell on a journalist, not AFTER. Simple as that.

[Rhouse]

05:57 PM on 03/13/2008

Did those same rules apply to Matt Drudge when he reported on Prince Harry who was with FIGHTING British troops in the Afgan. war. What are the universal ethics of putting people in GREATER danger even when you've beeen asked by the government ( that is the British government told the British ediotors not to do it.) to keep it quiet. He was over there not for glory or publicity, but to be with the ones who are trying to stabilize a country.

[TheyAllSuck]

03:02 AM on 03/16/2008

Most anyone in the US do not consider Matt Drudge a journalist. Someone who doesn't double check before running a story that a prominent gov't official is a wife beater is obviously not a journalist with ethical standards. I think you have the odd notion that if a US journalist professor criticizes British journalism standards concerning on or off the record, that somehow you think what Matt Drudge did justifies what the Scotsman reporter did. (2 wrongs make a right.)

I think its reasonable if the interviewee makes a "slip of the tongue" during an interview and specifically requests it at the end of the interview, that the slip not be be reported. Given British standards, I would think the only rational thing an interviewee should do is describe EVERYTHING as "off the record" or just not speak to British journalists.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

03:23 PM on 03/13/2008

What should have indicated that the whole thing was off the record was when Samantha Power said "We f*cked up in Ohio." This is was a few sentences before "monster" and the tone of the whole quote was not official-speak-- or fit for publication in most newspapers or magazines outside of Rolling Stone. Samantha Power knows how to speak-- and write-- in the official, learned tone of a college professor and campaign aide. This seemed like casual chit-chat.

But the damage is done. What's spooky is what Keith Olbermann said last night-- not during his Special Comment-- but about a half hour earlier when he said he was going to "get in trouble." It's like the whole media is living in fear of the Clinton campaign. Olbermann should be able to say anything he wants within the accepted boundaries of opinion-driven journalism. The Clintons have gone from being the bullied to being the bullies.

[LordKelvin]

09:55 AM on 03/14/2008

If you listen more to the BBC than to to the MUSHY AMERICAN TV and RADIO programs you will soon come to the conclusion that American journalists are extremely parochial and jingoistic.

In an interview on the BBC before her MONSTER comment Ms Power came across as "cloyingly fawning and sycophantic about" Obama. To listen to the interview one has to wonder what makes someone a HARVARD PROFESSOR. What originality would she contribute to Foreign Policy espoused by Obama.

Would it be that ala Condelezza Rice which is nothing more than "dressing up" to fly overseas for a photo op?

COGITO, ERGO SUM.