You are 100% correct and the people inviting you know there is a slim chance everything heard will stay on the down low.
"White House background briefings: Good journalism or anonymous government spin?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-ba...
This is all 'don't quote me on this' stuff.
Attaching names to quotes in these situations is condisered unethical. Seems no different from an ethics perspectiv e than other types of "off the record" commenting (ie, "you can reveal X but not Y).
But maybe somebody can school us (all) on the finer points here if we're reading it wrong.
In other words, Ben was clearly signaling that his other sources could remain confident that he respects the known and accepted rules of engagement, and that he will continue to do so.
However, he will not let a genuine scoop slide by if some high-profile idiot gets up in front of a room with heavy duty media people in it and (drunkenly?) talks — in excruciating detail — about how he'd spend $1 million in company funds to go about personally violating journalists who wrote negative things about his company.
I say "drunkenly" because I have no other explanation for a compound failure of judgement this cosmically bad.
--Seems to be the cliffs note version
Cliff's Notes are distillations, not distortions. Big difference.
I think its quite correct.
(Also, if humor is not your forte, I'm sorry).
That detail makes the author a douchebag.[1]
(And I'm not an Uber fan boy or apologist. Just sayin).
[1] Article source: A BuzzFeed editor was invited to the dinner by the journalist Michael Wolff, who later said that he had failed to communicate that the gathering would be off the record.
I say "if" because if there's one instance in which it seems like a journalist can permissibly break his word of confidentiality (or conveniently neglect to mention to another journalist that those rules apply) it's when a high-profile person stands up and publicly declares his plan for using $1 million in company funds to personally violate yet another journalist who had the temerity to write negative stories about his company.
(Maybe if any there are any working journalists reading this thread they can chime in here?)
In the meantime, the original point stands: there's no sign that Ben knowingly broke the rules and even if there were, it's insane to say that this violation is remotely comparable to the one he was reporting.
Thats a big problem and this bizzare turn of events seems to illustrate it quite well. The uber stuff is pretty lame, but these guys in hindsight almost seem to prove his point. When your journalists are un-ethical gutter dwellers, they lose any moral high ground. The argument that they should face the same scrutiny as there subjects almost starts to seem reasonable.
In this case, it would seem, everything is self-serving to buzz-feed. That creates a credibility issue for them. I could pre-text my way around any confidenctiality restrictions here in 30 seconds--all it takes is the assumption of two (not just one) unethical journalists in collusion. Thats basically what I assumed when reading how one invited the other, wihout disclosure of the ground rules, etc.
The problem here, is not that this happened or that that happened. Its that neither you nor I can tell with any certainty.
And that's why I think the (The Onion style) cynical cliff-note is actually the true story here.
A pox on all their houses.
Journalists who participate in "access journalism" get invited to off-the-record dinner parties and yachting weekends.
Journalists who ask hard hitting questions in the public interest tend not to be invited to the intimate soirées of the elite.
While there are very occasionally ethical reasons for a journalist to talk to a source off-the-record they are not going to occur in convivial social settings.
Anonymity is used to protect the source and to report something of actual interest. Here the source was the story.
http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
http://journalism.nyu.edu/publishing/ethics-handbook/human-s...
> On the record, on background, not for attribution and off the record: These are prearranged agreements between a reporter and a source, which govern how specific information can be used. These deals must be agreed to beforehand, never after. A source can't say something then claim it was "off the record." That's too late. When dealing with individuals who are not experienced in talking with reporters, journalists should make sure ground rules and potential consequences are clear, and then perhaps offer leeway. Of course, if the information isn't integral to the story, a reporter can agree not to use it. If you talk to five journalists, you'll likely get five different definitions for these terms. That's why it's important that a reporter clarify the use of these terms with a source before making any agreements.
From the article: "They’re invited to a background briefing, one of Washington’s most common, and little examined, rituals for the transmission of official spin, talking points and, occasionally, actual news."