Instead of being called molehill politics, it could be re-dubbed "Mayhill politics"; making a mountain out of a mayhill...

Just out of curiosity do you not remember what Arianna Huffington did to the Clintons, Gore and dems in the past? Why would anyone trust them now?

Prolific, that's what you are, Deanie! Prolific! This primary has unleashed you!

Well, at this point it's hard to tell who is or is not a supporter. And people are likely to switch sides at any point, no matter who they support.

Sometimes we all get frustrated. And even at the best of times we may not be able to anticipate how something would sound to someone else.

Basically our friends give us the benefit of the doubt. And any who may have grudge against us may perhaps be more ready than most people to hear things in a negative way.

When we say something, we have no control over how it may be used or interpreted. And that goes for reporters also. It's a shame the sound bites are what the media pick up. It's like the people running around looking for compromising photos. Same thing the compromising quotes.

Ethics are sorely wanting in many areas of life these days. Thanks for initiating this discussion.

♪♪♪

Nice post deanie but reporters/writers created the mess they now find themselves in and are loathe to change it. I think it really calls into question the whole notion of "Journalism" as both a craft and a profession. Nobody really is shocked by what one reporter or the other journalist will do to get what they want and create money for themselves. Since that is what all of it is about anyway..Money. Which is an honest shame. I mean how proud of the whole notion of being Journalist can you be when National Enquirer has as much validity as the NYT........Reporters don't give respect and will not get it in return.

Mayhill Fowler is a despicable, unprincipled creep.

"I strongly suspect that Bill Clinton, shaking hands with a supposed supporter on a rally ropeline, who asked a partisan question with an implied sense of outrage, did not know he was being recorded or that his remarks would be copied down and published."

What you suspect, even if true, is irrelevant to controversy. Someone in public life as long as Bill Clinton knows to the bottom of his shoes that things he says in public are apt to be reported. If they are newsworthy, they ought to be, and even if they aren't, they still might be. That's the price of celebrity, which he is certainly milking for every last million he can get.

The degree to which he blew a gasket on this was itself newsworthy, coming as it did at the end of a long chain of similar self-indulgences in the last 8 months. He just can't control himself any longer. He has only himself to blame.

By the way, it's not surprising to me that the Huffington Post wasn't interested in publishing your piece.

In a piece entitled "John McCain Should Go on Vacation, Hillary Clinton is Doing His Job for Him", published days after the Mayhill Fowler shit-bomb that nearly derailed Obama's campaign, Arianna wrote:

Clinton supporters say the darndest things.

Here's Sen. Evan Bayh, commenting on the political firestorm surrounding Barack Obama's remarks -- broken here on HuffPost's OffTheBus -- about economically-depressed small town voters: "The far right wing has a very good track record of using things like this relentlessly against our candidates, whether it's Al Gore or John Kerry. I'm afraid this is the kind of fodder they might use to harm him."

They? They? It's not the far right wing relentlessly using these comments for political gain, Senator. It's your candidate, Hillary Clinton, adopting the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/john-mccain-should-go-on_b_96577.html

To which I replied:

They? They? It's not the far right wing that published Mayhill Fowler's filthy piece, Arianna. It was the online newspaper that carries your name. Spare us the phony outrage, OK? If Obama's campaign comes to an abrupt end in the coming days, your name will forever be associated with his demise.

Harsh? Yes. Intentionally so. True? I'd say so. And did they post my comment? Surprisingly, no. I've made far worse comments that HAVE been posted. But apparently, Arianna has a one-way policy when it comes to criticism. I tried posting several variations of my criticism, including one that was completely toned down. Not a chance. Then, just for fun, I submitted a comment that complimented her piece. It went up within seconds.

Ms. Mills -

Loved your post. You've really nailed not only the problem with today's "citizen journalist", you've specifically called out Mayhill Fowler for truly sleazy political reporting. You've just picked up a new ardent reader.

Earlier in my professional life, I wrote for the Times and for various magazines; later, I was the editor of a city magazine. My tenure as both a journalist and as an editor pre-dated the advent of blogs, YouTube, etc..
The issue that you have raised is not only fair, but also fascinating; but what it is not is simplistic.
More important than the practice of guerilla interviewing -- and, to be fair to Mayhill, she turned out to be an equal opportunity guerilla -- is a broader, two-part ethical question: is there any venue (other than an interviewee's own living or bedroom) that is not a legitimate arena for public enquiry? And, what is the obligation of the editor when presented with a guerilla "scoop"?
I'm not sure I know the answer, yet, to either part of the ethical question. But I do know that there is a dangerous trend in our culture to "rescue" and, therefore, to enable, both ways.
The bottom line is that, in public, no public figure should be naive enough to assume that he, or she, is off the record. There is defintely an arguable position that a public figure must take responsibility for his or her own words, as it was his or her personal choice in assessing risk to take part in the conversation.
That is not the same issue that confronts the editor, who has a thornier problem: he, or she, may recognize that the speaker was suffering a momentary lapse of judgment, and genuinely feel some empathy for that; nonetheless, the statement was made, and the information may be pertinent to a public discourse about a particular issue. Is the obligation of the editor to be kind, or to be neutral? In the case of Mayhill and Obama, I'm sure that Arianna Huffington was torn. She is an Obama supporter, but also the editor of a blog -- however progressive -- in which readership must have some faith that the blog is forthcoming.
I once interviewed William Buckley, who answered my questions about the specified subject and then talked to me for an hour about everything under the sun. During that extended dialogue, he said a few things that were particularly provocative. I wrestled, overnight, with whether or not to include them in my piece. Although I did not agree with his politics, I liked and respected him as a person.
The following morning, William Buckley himself weighted in on my dilemma. I had a message from him waiting in my office. (I paraphrase, since I no longer have the actual while-you-were-out.)
According to Mr. Buckley: "I am responsible for what I say, and you, as a young journalist, would be ill-advised to miss this opportunity to quote me sounding more like a horse's ass than usual."
Awed, I immediately deleted the provocative material.
The next day, a courier brought me an inscribed copy of his latest book, which was inscribed: "Did you make the right decision?"
Did I? I still don't know.

I totally agree with you on journalistic ethics (or lack of them, in the case o Mayhill Fowler)

I do find it interesting that the Clintons didn't find her lack of ethics a problem when using her unethical reporting to attack Obama, though.

Well, I am absolutely in AWE of these comments. What a fascinating and informative discussion. I have enjoyed reading every one.

WWSTAEBLER and ARMCHAIR GUERILLA seem particularly well-informed on this subject, and I appreciate WWSTAEBLER mentioning his background (could be hers; if so, forgive me)--and putting into even better words what I was trying to say.

As far as whether Bill Clinton should have known and/or deserved it for being such a jackass; I don't disagree with that to a point, but Clinton was just an illustration, and to get off on whether or not he should have known or whether or not he deserved it misses the point entirely.

I am disturbed that a blogger with enough means to literally fly all over the country following a given candidate, donate almost the full legal amount to that candidate in order to gain entre into more restricted venues with that candidate (and this includes more than one; for instance, she has donated to Fred Thompson)--then to pretend to be one thing while acting in a journalistic capacity is, in my opinion, unethical.

Does a website that has taken on the veneer of a legitimate news organization have a responsibility to adhere to even the barest outlines of ethics?

Apparently not--and I'm not picking on HuffPo. Like I said, I'm proud to be affiliated with them and I read them every day.

And perhaps all politicians should be on alert at all times that every single word or gesture 24/7 could wind up on the worldwide web instantly and be repeated ad infinitum. Perhaps they should know that this is the price of being a public persona.

But I disagree. For instance, a celebrity actor is expected to be "on" when doing the red carpet thing, attending professional functions, doing philanthropy, sitting for interviews.

But this does not give paparrazzi (sp) the right to stalk them while bringing, say, a new baby home from the hospital or attending a parent's funeral. Just because they are public figures does not mean that they do not deserve ANY privacy whatsoever.

And I just think that even politicians should be permitted to be human now and then.

I don't think we should go back to the days when male reporters all covered up JFK's infedelities and so on.

But I do think that, if we don't find a balance, then as one commenter said, we'll wind up with a whole roster of Mitt Romneys running--automatrons; walking robots preprogrammed to say only perfect focus-group statements, and never to think, or act, like people.

And for that, well, a website and its editors would have to do a bit of reining in.

I don't see it happenin'. And it bothers me.

I hope that Mayhill Fowler's mugshot is in the hands of Obama, Michelle, his SS detail, his advance staff; anyone who travels with him etc.

Missy Mayhill used pefect empath pitch to posit her question to Bill Clinton. She's a shrewd, sophisticated old-style southern belle type who loves clothes and would know how to work it in a style familiar to Bill. She was also absolutely masterful at playing her bosses; convincing them of her injured innocence as an Obama "supporter" despite the reams of evidence to the contrary and the hundreds of comments from outraged Obamabots citing it, chapter and verse.

(I have no idea if Clinton supporters went ballistic en masse in a similiar fashion and wouldn't blame them if they did. She worked him)

That said, hypocritically, I do hope that the dear lady is next assigned to hitch a ride on McCain's bus. Although, I do have a hunch that Cindy McCain would suss her out if she were within range of Missy Mayhill.

I think everyone commenting on this thread should ask themselves how you would respond if the same thing happened to Barack Obama, or John McCain for that matter? Would you be as incensed if it were McCain? Would you be more offended if it were Obama? Or are you more offended because it's Clinton?

Thanks, Deanie, for the shoutout. My past is shady and better left unexamined, though it did include a stint in the field.

And if this is the way politics is going to be, would someone care to donate to my travel fund so I can get myself wired and follow McCain around to private events courtesy of TPM?

Great description, lally, I'm with you. (When are you and I going to take over Todd Gitlin's job?) :-)

Bill Clinton and ethics: Oxymoronic

Deanie rocks, Fowler sucks.

And I second all of hrebendorf's comments.

Integrity. Once you've demonstrated a complete lack of it yourself, who cares what you might have to report about anyone else?

I couldn't agree more. Every time I hear the word "bitter" I think of that ... woman ... There were thousands of hours and millions of dollars WASTED on defending what was really a very compassionate statement.

He was saying that he understood their frustrations, he didn't blame them for their anger, or even their prejudices. He was saying, don't be too hard on these people, they have every right to feel the way they're feeling.

Anyone with half a brain could hear what he was saying. Even if that ... woman ... didn't understand it, certainly the Clinton's understood what he meant.

But then it was too late because no one was taking the time to think it through, or even read the whole statement. It was too late, and everything almost went down the drain because of that... woman ...

I tell you, it's really fun to log on after being away for some hours, and catch up on comments. What a great discussion.

You guys have no idea how I have HUNGERED for this kind of intellectual stimulation, living as I do in the Buckle of the Bush Bible Belt, where soooo many people get their news from Rush and Bill O'Reilly. It's a wonder I've even got a tongue any more, from all the times I've had to bite it at social events.

But I would like to comment on the anger toward Mayhill Fowler. There is a deliberate reason why I did not mention her name. I wasn't trying to protect her, because I provided links, so anybody could have known who I meant immediately if they had not already heard of her or read her stuff.

But this post is not about Mayhill Fowler. She is just an egregious example of a trend I see taking place. Her ability to follow candidates coast to coast and buy her way into events only makes it possible that she can create more "gotcha" events. Others can do the same more locally.

Although it was Fowler's lack of ethical responsibility that provoked this post, my REAL target was not her, but the overall MINDSET, the ATMOSPHERE provided, not just by HuffPo, but by Drudge and other Internet sources, that seems to be contagious.

The "bitter" remarks, for example, spread like absolute wildfire and then were pounced on by mainstream media. For two solid weeks, in the Wash. Post, the NY Times, Newsweek, Time, broadcast news, NPR--you name it--Obama's name would barely be mentioned at all without the word "bitter" somewhere in the text. For days and days and days it dominated the op-ed pages and blogosphere, and it cost him many thousands of votes at a very crucial time in the campaign.

Not that I think journalism should be partisan--I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it bothers me that her methods are not only condoned and encouraged, but REWARDED. Handsomely.

What this portends for the future of politics in America is dark and not good for any of us.

I remember Obama saying once that he did not just want to end the war in Iraq, but he wanted to end, "the entire mindset that got us into it."

This is what I'm talking about here. It was not my intention to provoke attacks on Mayhill Fowler, which is the main reason I purposely left out her name.

I consider her the forerunner of what will soon become a major trend, as bloggers and journalists everywhere see the attention her methods have garnered her, and how an entire election has been shaped by the "gotcha" moments that she sneakily obtained under morally questionable and ethically irresponsible methods.

What I'm saying is that we need GATEKEEPERS. Editors somewhere who will have the balls to say, This isn't right.

What I fear is that it's too late, now. Anyone can peddle or publish their smears in any venue they like now, and as long as it is egged on and encouraged by our society, then eventually, we will have human robots running for office, too afraid even to shrug at the wrong moment.

I agree with you completely. As a retired journalist, I know there must be a definitive line between observer & participant. For this reason, I don't believe there really can be such a thing as a citizen journalist. It has all the umph and moral authority of a citizen's arrest.

Unfortunately in a world of shrinking newsroom budgets-- and in a culture which values hedge-fund managers WAY more than reporters-- we are left with a decentralized news/public affairs product which sacrifices journalistic standards and ethics.

It always struck me as ironic that news reporting for most of us historically has been such a low-paying job. After all, many of the great newspapers espouse very liberal, democratic principles and often use their editorial pages to come to the support of labor unions and labor issues.

Yet the pay, let's face it, has sucked.

Nowadays, these great bastions of liberalism, such as the Huffington Post, have dispensed with the salaries altogether.

An old adage about getting what you pay for leaps to mind.

Shame on Mayhill Fowler for impersonating both a reporter and a political supporter. Shame on the Huffington Post for giving her a forum. And shame on Ariana for refusing to part with some of her millions to hire real reporters.

I kind of wonder now why I forked over $20 for her new book.

Regrettably, Huffington Post isn't the bastion of free progressive speech one would wish it was. I was banned from posting there because some thin-skinned Evangelicals objected to the name *Jesus H Christ*. Huffpo's knuckling under to them is a disgrace. Hip! Hip! Hypocrisy!!!

Your Savior Eternally

Jesus H Christ

I think you're well meaning but you're plainly wrong.

Everything is on the record unless the reporter and source both agree ahead of time that it isn't. That's just how it works.

1. Citizen journalists are not professionals.

2. The term "citizen journalist" is poorly defined at best and an oxymoron at worst. In the case of Huffington Post's model, it is not even close to pure, as editors have the final say in what gets published.

3. After Obama received the Fowler treatment at a "no press" fundraiser, he should have known that anything he said was to Fowler was fair game. She should have been on his radar; in fact, he probably knew full well she would print what he said.

4. The beauty of blogging is the freedom to say what one wants and allowing the readers to judge whether content is worthy of attention. Blogging also allows the writer to set their own standards, which can be low or high; again, it is up to the reader to judge whether or not the material is worthy. The reader's freedom of choice is what makes blogging work, and what hurts traditional media.

If I were you, I'd be as upset about being used by a for-profit corporate media organization as about Mayhill Fowler's work. Readers aren't stupid, and those that don't like what she's done will stop reading. If people stop reading her work, Huffington Post will stop publishing it or promoting it. But if people keep working hard for nothing and giving away their work to Huffington Post, they'll continue to abuse their position in the marketplace and take advantage of altruistic bloggers who flatter themselves as journalists.

This reminds me of the "laws" that say that radio DJs must inform anyone that they call on the phone that they are on the air and ask for permission. There are even laws in many states (as Bill Clinton would know first hand) that restrict people from recording conversations when the other person isn't aware of the recording.

We have laws and ethics in this country that protect our rights to have both a private and public life and we shouldn't turn every moment of a public figure's life into a gotcha moment. Just look how that is going out in Hollywood with the Paparazzi. Is that what we want to see surrounding our political leaders?

Interesting context. Thank you for sharing this. HuffPost may need to consider its standards, or the people it's associated with.

The bottom line is we have to get beyond the Clintons as fast as humanly possible.

There is another TPM headline today about the Clinton campaign advising a supporter to play up Jewish/Black tensions. It's interesting, but it has to be water under the bridge at this point. The sooner we stop talking about the Clintons the better.

BBpdx, I had to laugh at your comments about stopping talking about the Clintons.

I was so angry at the graceless, snotty way she handled Tue night, and even angrier the next day when--at this historic occasion for Obama, instead of all the op-eds concentrating on giving him the customary brief honeymoon about his win and his plans--we got half and half.

A good half of the op-eds and blogs were about HER. Yes, most of them were negative because of her stunt--even from Clinton supporters--but they were still about HER. This whole damn week, which should have been Obama's, has been about HER and whether SHE needs to be VP in order to SAVE the poor distraught Democratic party and, presumably, be the grown-up to keep an eye on the kid since, as she told us many times, he's sooooo unqualified for the job.

So finally I said to my husband, that here is how I wanted to see the media handle her:

IGNORE HER.

If they turn their hot spotlight where it should be--the nominee--and ignore her, then we can get on with this campaign and beating McCain.

And yes I know that is insulting to Clinton supporters everywhere, but so far, I have not read a single positive review of her speech Tue night and even her MOST loyal supporters have been stunned into awkward embarrassment.

And as Drew Westin pointed out shrewdly on today's HuffPo--the fact that McCain deliberately chose to steal some primetime limelight the hour before Obama was scheduled to speak and--LIKE HILLARY--chose to talk all about how Obama would be a lousy president compared to MOI--was unprecedented. Westin says that it is a time-honored tradition that, on the night a candidate is scheduled to speak to supporters about their win, that the opponent sit quietly and give him or her this one moment.

But no.

They were BOTH churlish and mean-spirited. McCain paid for it because his speech was so godawful that, as Josh Marshall pointed out, even FOX commentators couldn't agree on why it sucked so bad.

And altho Hillary was roundly criticized, it still kept her on stage and--in her mind anyway--in control of the process.

I want everybody to just start ignoring her from this time out.

For God's sake, let the man have his moment.

Great post Ms. Mills.

One bit of fine-tuning to one of your posts: to those of us of a certain vintage, linking the words "tired" and "emotional" to someone is a strong suggestion that the person was drunk. I doubt that was your intention!

It's in the same register as referring to a gay man as a "confirmed bachelor."