Journalism has seen a creeping dynamic of public officials withdrawing into the shadows. Since any comment risks going viral (looking at you, Richard Mourdock), top officials increasingly don’t want to be quoted, prefacing all their media comments with requests that the conversation stay “off the record” so the individual can talk more freely. This happens to me on a consistent basis.
I often don’t use the off the record stuff I’m passed, but you see sources like “senior Administration official” in the pages of leading newspapers every day. Political elites have become both paranoid about making a comment that will boomerang on them, and confident that they can dictate terms to a pliant media.
The Des Moines Register, in the unique position of being the top news source in a swing state, played against this type, if only a bit. Their strategy, when President Obama called and requested that an interview be held off the record, was to take the interview, and then write an open letter to the campaign, embarrassing them for the terms of the interview and urging them to put it on the record.
The conference call lasted nearly 30 minutes and was an incredibly informative exchange of questions, answers and an insightful glimpse into the president’s vision for a second term. He made a genuine and passionate case for our endorsement and for reelection.
Just two weeks before Election Day, the discussion, I believe, would have been valuable to all voters, but especially those in Iowa and around the country who have yet to decide between the incumbent Democrat and his Republican opponent.
Unfortunately, what we discussed was off-the-record. It was a condition, we were told, set by the White House [...]
…this blog, I hope, reveals in a transparent way the rigors of covering a heated presidential race in a critical swing state and the circumstances that unfold far from the view of our readers.
Yet, it also speaks to the transparency all voters should demand from the candidates. They want more than just repetitive sound bites on the campaign trail or rehearsed one-liners from debate stages.
Our expectation is that the answer to one of the most important questions the Register ever can ask a politician –- “Why should you be our president?” –- deserves to be shared with voters.
Today, campaign officials made available the entire transcript of the phone call with the Des Moines Register. The shaming tactic – and the fact that Mitt Romney previously agreed to an editorial board interview that was recorded for audio – did the trick.
Incidentally, the transcript reveals a perfectly banal set of familiar talking points, with the President making his case for re-election without deviating from things he has said repeatedly in public. There was no earthly reason for this ever to be off the record. The amusing passage comes when Obama says “And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt,” and then goes on to say that the far right-wing of the Republican Party has damaged their standing with Latino voters, which isn’t blunt at all but just completely obvious, and something Obama has said constantly.
Not every news outlet has the leverage of a swing-state editorial board. But there’s value in news media just refusing to play along with what is now a near-constant request for off-the-record conversations. They play a role in the media landscape, but increasingly they have played an exclusive role. The constant embargoes and background conversations, often on the most trivial of items, damage the relationship between the press and the people they cover. Journalists need to grow a backbone. Shaming is at least one technique to end this race off the record.




11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thank you, David, for covering this absurd great shrinking from responsibility by the political class, which usually involves the complicity of the “media” who are also part of that political class,
Kudos to the “Des Moines Register” for refusing to play the asinine “game”.
Somehow, there seems a resonance between this post of yours and the one Jane has just put up:
http://firedoglake.com/2012/10/24/what-david-freedlanders-report-on-blogs-left-out-google/
Perhaps Google overreaches itself in its desire to please the masters, as the MSM now does? Let it see and consider whether it might be very wise to chart another course, to not seek domination, however alluring the “prospects”?
DW
OBAMA ’08
BARACK OBAMA: CONNECTING AND EMPOWERING ALL AMERICANS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION (excerpt)
Hah
Thanks for this, DD!
The Register should have cancelled the interview as soon as the off-the-record was imposed. It sets a bad precedent to do the interview anyway.
Why would the prez give an interview to a newspaper OFF the record? What would be the point?
.
Nothing like a little competition!
To get their endorsement I suppose.
Remember 2008, when Obama promised to be the most transparent President ever in general and, in particular, to put negotiation of Obamacare on C-Span?
After inauguration, however, he stonewalled the ACLU about white house visitors logs because they showed he was meeting with Big Health and then went on to have the most secretive administration ever in general.
And then there was his promise about no mandate and a strong public option.
And so many others, like hope and change.
sigh.
Pete Peterson and the Wall Street vultures must be happy that Obama plans the “grand bargain” again, and still loves the Bowles Simpson deal to lower taxes for the rich and raise Medicare age to 67.
Kudos to both D-Day and the Des Moines Register. See? There are still some papers out there that still feel some connection to their audiences!
Back in the day, when I worked on campaigns, getting these endorsements was important (still is, apparently). But when we got them, we wanted the transcripts in print. Why? Because it’s good, free PR. In smaller papers, they would often start the transcripts on the front page. Back then, you couldn’t buy that placement. Now they can, so that’s not important to campaigns loaded up with tons of corporate money.
Lastly, while paranoia reigns supreme in contemporary comm strategies, this has more to do with asserting absolute control over the messaging than anything else–they prefer people read their ads than newscopy. It also helps these campaigns separate the media outlets from their audiences, so the paranoia is as much based in snooty elitism as anything else. Stuff going viral, especially at this stage of the game, isn’t really an issue for OFA. Nothing is really going to change the dynamic now, unless they really say something stupid… which isn’t going to happen.
Righties flailing on YouTube only helps keep wavering Dems on the reservation, since it only feeds the Fear & Loathing. So I seriously doubt that’s a concern here.
Sociopaths don’t know the meaning of shame and have no capacity to experience it.