Monday, March 10, 2008

Off the Record, You're a Pain in the Butt.

BARACK OBAMA'S FORMER foreign policy aide, Samantha Power, called Hillary Clinton a "monster." And then she tried to take it back.

"We f***** up in Ohio," Power told a reporter from The Scotsman, a newspaper in Great Britain. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything."

What do you do at that point? First she says something that would definitely be newsworthy, then she tries to restrict you from using it.

Would you publish the quote?

15 comments:

Kayte said...

I think I would publish the comment.. because she should have said off the record before she made the comment, and if she did do that, she probably would have realized what she was saying. Which I think is what happened. She went on a rant not realizing everything she was saying then tried to cover it up.

Zach Y. said...

I would definitely publish the quote. When you speak with a journalist, there is no such thing as off the record. Why would anyone confide in a person whose job is to tell the world what you have to say?

Zach Y. said...

I would definitely publish the quote. When you speak with a journalist, there is no such thing as off the record. Why would anyone confide in a person whose job is to tell the world what you have to say?

Nick Vadala said...

I'd publish the quote. As someone who is (was) very close to a prominent public figure, Power should have watched what she said--especially with the knowledge that she was speaking to a journalist.

Anonymous said...

There is such a thing as off the record. It's an important part of journalism. This sounds like a women who said something that "slipped" and she want to take it back.
Paul Klein

Brian said...

I would definetly publish that quote. That is a headline right there, someone from Obama's camp calling Hillary a monster. Also, that is not something that has to be kept off the record, we dont know if the journalist agreed to keep it off the record. This is definetly something you publish because it creates a story and draws people to the story.

Geo said...

Watch the video interview with the journalist ... it's the last blue link in the post. Then let me know what you think.

- George (the teacher who never heard of Carlson Tucker before this happened)

Anonymous said...

Saw the clip. Is Tucker a journalist?

Geo said...

Is he a journalist? What a great question. Hard to say. But his MSNBC show was canceled on Monday.

- George (the teacher who was blown away by the interview with the Scottish reporter)

Aidan Walsh said...

I think that the comment should have definitely been followed up with some questions as to what 'Monster' means, because simply insulting one candidate is the type of smear tactics that seem to be portraying the immaturity of both sides of the campaign, however like the pimping comment made by David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton, the word itself only represents an idea and if that idea is backed up, it may carry some weight to it. As far as whether it should or shouldn't have remained on the record, I agree with the scottish reporter that she tried to withdraw the comment after making it rather than saying it was off the record to begin with.

Ariela Rose said...

I would publish it. It seems like she just let the word "monster" slip but it definitely reveals how she truly about Hilary Clinton. It really makes the story, especially the fact that she threw in "that is off the record" right after it slipped out of her mouth. She obviously wouldn't be happy that it was published but then again maybe she should watch what kind of words she drops during a major presidential race.

Joshua Middleton said...

If she said "off the record" then it sort of makes the comment off limits. It kind of ties into the ethics of journalism. There is a lot of slander going on in this race right now. Every other week big news is made when someone from one of the camps says something offensive, then gets fired. With that being said, it probably made it hard on the reporter to keep a gem like this from making the news - it turned into a big story.

Geo said...

Who should be able to dictate what is on or off the record? Can an interview subject retract something when they realize they slipped? Isn't that a little late?

- George (the teacher)

Anonymous said...

It's too late. Off the record is agreed upon by both parties. She should have stopped herself, taken a breath, stated to the jounralists "this is off the record" and then voiced her opinion. The jounralist would have agreed with her( or not), had a chuckle and got back to business. No big deal.
Paul Klein

Anonymous said...

Sorry, it's JOURNALIST. I was pretty tired.
Paul