« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Rachel Sklar's Answer to My TPM Post
By Chris Powers
My identity is revealed above for the sake of transparency and also because I decided to call Rachel Sklar's bluff.
Rachel, one of the bigwig bloggers at Huffington Post, served up a horribly knee-jerk attack on Barack Obama with a piece today that accused him of engaging in retribution by "banning" The New Yorker's reporter from his plane now touring the other side of the world.
You can read the email exchange I had today with Rachel in my post "With Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemas."
Apparently, she didn't like my TPM post about her HuffPo ethics. So she wrote me again with the lame rebuttal below and the challenge I have accepted. But allow me to correct in advance the errors she makes in her response.
As anyone can read in the original exchange linked above, my first sentence identified me as having been a lifelong journalist. I am no longer a journalist, however, as I retired from the profession over a year ago.
However, Rachel thinks I was bound by professional journalistic ethics to not use our email exchange publicly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once she understood — from the outset — that I might report her comments and that I had given no assurance of confidentiality, it was up to her to respond or not. A good journalist isn't afraid to report the facts when there has been no waiver of "on the record" granted or implied.
Here is Rachel's insistent response:
Let me get this straight: You've been a journalist most of your life, and yet you publish private correspondence without asking the permission of the person with whom you are corresponding? When that person is a journalist, with a specific "off the record" tagline to the email exchange? After you have self-identified as a journalist, indicating that you are opening up a professional discussion on the basis of professional ethics? Wow. That's shady beyond belief, my friend.I think I'll still use Ripper here, if you don't mind, Rachel. But nice try at intimidating me and avoiding responsibility for your own leap of ethics.
There was no "agreeing" to abide by the off the rec request subsequently, because it came in the first email simultaneously with my reply. If I had sent a follow-up email I'd be outta luck, like Sam Power, but in my first response to you I made it clear that my correspondence was private and not meant for publication. You published that and subsequent correspondence, and clearly noted that you were aware of your breach. And who, exactly, is calling whom a hack?
Either way, it's a non-issue - I stand by all my points, including my final email, where I said that there was plausible deniability. Of course there is. It's in Allen's original quote, where he notes that the Obama campaign cited space constraints. I took all the information available, built and argument, and arrived at a conclusion. All the building blocks were there. Agree - disagree - my reasoning is transparent. In fact, I have been transparent throughout this entire process. Unlike some.
Go ahead and publish this -- if you don't mind having this on the record, Chris Powers.
Comments (104)
Chris who? Ripper McCord rules.
July 21, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your support. May I visit your porch in Jamaica?
July 21, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wherever my porch lands, you are welcome.
July 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this pseudonym supposed to be the hunch-back "Ripper McCord" who used to hang around the Greyhound bus station in Baltimore, rubbing his hump up against undercover vice cops and asking for a taste of "the real Obama?"
But there is no "real Obama."
July 22, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I am under no special rules when communicating with a journalist just because he or she may think I'm a "member of the club." Here is my more thorough defense:
1) There was an overriding public interest in reporting the facts. Baseless attacks on presidential candidates deserve to be knocked down — especially when they are committed knowingly by anyone in the media.
2) No agreement of confidentiality was made. Journalists, of all people, should assume it's all on the record until the reporter replies "Okay, off the record."
3) Even if confidentiality were agreed to, as one reporter told me: "Sometimes you gotta burn a source." In this case, a "journalist" failed to grasp the rules about interviewing. No burning was necessary, though in this case, it would have been warranted.
July 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's totally unethical.
July 21, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Situational ethics apply here.
July 21, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dangerous, slippery slope.
July 21, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a slope I had to traverse in this case, because I didn't violate industry-standard practice. In fact, as a journalist, she should have been more aware of the ground rules than the average citizen. However, I would argue that had I violated a confidentiality agreement with her, it would also have been reasonable — even standard — journalistic practice by virtue of the circumstances. Those circumstances include a member of the media knowingly making accusations that she arrived at by guessing at a presidential candidate's motives. It happens all the time, and it's wrong enough to warrant public exposure — if our politics is to be of value.
July 21, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Speaking as a fellow retired journalist, it sometimes is the case when a source must be burnt. This sounds like such a case.
July 22, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Illusions aren't flamable!!!
July 22, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Sklar should be well aware that email is not private, even private email.
As a journo-blogger, she should also be aware that she is not obligated to "correspond" with every person who writes to her. She could have merely trashed your initial email and not responded.
Whether or not you identified yourself as a journalist -- active, retired or otherwise -- is immaterial. Consider the contrary, she could have published your email to her. Also, you never asked for the exchange to be off the record in exchange for her candor.
The substance of this exchange is nothing different than what often occurs within the pages of HuffPo and indeed Ms. Sklar "column," where she and others have similarly spirited on the record discussions. There was nothing anyone would consider necessary to be said under a veil of secrecy.
In fact, I'd argue that if Ms. Sklar knew within the first sentence of your email you were a journalist, she was obligated to take her remarks off the record BEFORE they were made and not after. Arguing "What I just said is off-the-record," rarely if ever holds up. The standard is to state BEFORE you blab the sensitive info, that what you are ABOUT TO SAY is off the record AND secure the agreement of the reporter that it will be off the record before you spill the beans.
Looks like Ripper ripped her.
July 22, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you think that.
July 23, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's... wrong. Correspondence is off the record only if both parties agree. I can't write a letter to you and then put "P.S. This is off the record," and expect you to abide by it. I have to ask from the outset if we can speak off the record and get you to agree to it before continuing. This is basic stuff and if Rachel Sklar doesn't know that then she's not much of a journalist.
If Rachel's position on what's on or off the record were correct, by the way, then those silly legal disclaimers at the bottom of corporate emails that say it's private correspondence and meant only for the recipient would be legally and ethically meaningful whereas everybody agrees that they aren't.
July 21, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm flattered that she attacked me. Must have hit some nerve.
July 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She needs a sense of humor. And the "outing you" thing is -- well, it's pathetic and should be beneath her. Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I'm pretty easily identifiable, as a journalist, myself. But I don't try to out people's real identities on the Internet for the simple reason that I don't know why they might use a handle. It could be to protect themselves, it could be for artistic expression, it could be both. Either way, I know it's not my place to go there. Sklar should have enough sense of humor about herself, and enough sense of proportion, not to have gone there either.
To heck with her.
July 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, destor, every single lawyer I know uses them -- and with good reason. They are legal. Whether they are enforceable is another story. But that's like recognizing that patents are only as good as the ability to enforce them.
July 21, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If electronic correspondence were to be exempt from publication, journalists would be out of business. Remember the scandalous "private texting" of Mark Foley? The media's current push to access all email correspondence in the Missouri governor's office? The publication of AP Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier's emails to Karl Rove?
destor23's explanation of the industry standard of journalists regarding "on/off the record" communications is accurate as well as past and current practice.
July 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are jumping the gun and reacting emotionally. I was responding to destor's comment about what is at the bottom of the email and it's value. Please reread.
Having said that, I think you are really pushing some boundaries here in your general comments. If you really went around burning as many bridges as you are saying is your right to do, I can't believe you would have had any long term sources in your career. Moreover, if you were that aggressive in your career about burning sources, I suspect it would have come off during your questioning which would have made me more reluctant to talk. I got burned pretty badly once -- because the journalist was either an idiot or simply enjoyed feeling superior (everyone in this particular article was made to look bad). It wasn't even about leaking confidential information, it simply was taking things out of context.
This particular journalist called me up about 14 months later for some additional insight, and I politely declined. I can't say I didn't enjoy giving that same story to a competitor.
Flies and honey v. vinegar, you know.
I'm guessing you were more toned down in your career but are really enjoying "outing" someone at this particular moment.
July 21, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, I'm not reacting emotionally at all. I understand from your comments that you want to question my ethics, but you are talking about hypotheticals that did not occur.
Lighten up. My sources were great and constant. I never burned a single source in my entire career, and I haven't burned a source now in my retirement. Today's exchange was never off the record.
Lighten up and quit inferring what isn't there.
July 21, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, sources you speak with don't appreciate you publishing their comments. That sort of thing happens at every White House press conference. It's part of the job to let it roll off your back.
July 21, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this particular journalist wasn't too happy. Everyone in the original article snubbed him as well. He had a difficult time writing about this field of science again -- he burnt an entire field.
I'm curious: did you report for the MSM? TV? Newpaper? Radio?
July 22, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
[[[[[crickets]]]]]
July 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Physician, heal thyself.
The quote about "sometimes having to burn a source" that I commented on wasn't yours, it was your friends (at least according to your post).
Then I commented on destor's corporate email tag comment.
Again, you saw this as referencing you and Rachel's comment. Go back and reread, again, please.
I'm glad to see you don't like burning sources (because it is unethical), so my assumption that your career behavior was not as aggressive as the lines you are espousing today seems to be correct.
Seems like we are in violent agreement, wouldn't you say?
July 22, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite. But it will do for now.
July 22, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, clearthinker...I'm not sure whether to agree with you or not on this, partly because I'm not sure what you're saying. As a lawyer who, of course, has an automatic "privileged and confidential" tag on my e-mail signature, I have to say that saying that something is privileged doesn't necessarily make it so. Sometimes I send e-mails to my wife from work. Those aren't privileged, even though the automatic signature tag is there.
What makes something privileged is whether it is a communication between a lawyer and a client concerning legal advice. It doesn't matter whether the signature line is there or not. The disclaimer merely puts a person on notice (usually, another attorney of the same client) that the communication may be privileged. The disclaimer itself has no effect on whether the communication is actually privileged.
But then, maybe that's what you meant in making the distinction between "legal" and "enforceable."
July 22, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess I'm making a slightly different argument... or maybe it speaks to "enforceable."
Your private emails with your clients are, indeed, privileged in that they can't be seized by law enforcement or subpeonaed by the courts except in very specialized circumstances.
But lets say you forward that correspondence to me, even accidentally. I'm not bound to respect the privileged or confidential nature of what you sent me. You might say, "Hey, don't be a jerk about it," (and this has happened to me before and in all cases I wasn't a jerk about it) but I'm not bound by anything that's in the signature line of an email I receive.
July 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor, I agree with you. It's clearthinker whose thoughts aren't entirely transparent to me (pun intended).
July 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has been on the receiving end of journalists' assumptions about what is and what is not on the record, I say "touche!" Ripper Chris. Especially since the HuffPo seems to be sinking toward the tabloid end of things. Her first mistake was responding to you. After that you are blameless.
July 21, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I wasn't even expecting a response. Glad she did, though!
July 21, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you got great material. But, really, would you have responded? I suspect not. So, she's an amateur.
July 21, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The definition of a professional is: one who gets paid. I have no idea about her status.
July 21, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are professionals--who might get paid--and professionalism. I thought her initial response to you made it clear that she was not aware of professional standards. Plus, her defense about the "building blocks" and her reasoning being transparent is patently absurd. In any event, good work!
July 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just seriously made me laugh. Her entire argument is ridiculous from the get-go, and I'm glad and applaud you for calling her out on it. I also applaud you for sharing it with us, because there is a need for transparency.
I do have to just add, though I am not a journalist and do not know the ins and outs of journalistic ethics and standards, I am a movie buff, and I cannot remember a single film I have seen (and I've seen a helluva lot) where BOTH PARTIES didn't agree when they were talking "off the record". Now, I know that films are not the best reference for reality a lot of the time, but I can't imagine that every one of those films got it wrong. ;D
Great job, Ripper/Chris! =)
July 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your new avatar makes me question whether to take you seriously. ;)
July 21, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will be interesting to see if you hear from her again.
July 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she'll send me a Christmas card, if that's what you mean.
July 21, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA! I'll take that as a compliment. ;D
I couldn't help myself (with the avatar). After seeing the film.. Oh man. It leaves one speechless.
July 22, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little accountability is never a bad thing.
Op/Ed has it's own section and should be clearly labeled as such. Just the fact that this hypothetical drivel is passed off as "Journalism" does not make it such.
It's what's wrong with the press; Report what you KNOW and save the nth level derivative analysis for banter over Cocktails.
July 21, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary Cohen's original TPM post today about Sklar's HuffPo post
# New Yorker banned from Obama press plane??? Huffpost gets it wrong.
by Gary Cohen
has disappeared and is a "File Not Found."
July 21, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Well, here's your chance to apply the same investigative journalism for the MSM for TPM itself.
TPM: the subject of a SCAMMED investigation?
July 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'll let you try your hand at this one. Please don't enjoy it too much.
July 21, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I was acting on my own. SCAAMD doesn't investigate, only reports. Please don't keep throwing your vitriol carelessly at innocent people.
July 22, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I have no interest in ferreting out things like this. But it does seem along the lines of what you do. I mean, if the MSM is a decent target, why not TPM?
I really don't get it. Is there a difference? Or is this just good old dogmatic thinking?
July 22, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen that happen here before. Your opinion?
July 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no problem finding the original Cohen post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/new-yorker-banned-from-obama-p.php
July 22, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sklar was a corporate attorney before she decided to be a "journalist".
July 21, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
@barefooted in reply to:
"I haven't seen that happen here before"
It has happened before but usually it's the officially designated invited guests who are enabled to delete their own threads. MJ Rosenberg has disappeared at least a half dozen of his without explanation.
Or more, as in the following example:
"briefly: steve clemons posted a piece titled 'Obama's Economic Soul?.'
in sequence: a) i commented, b) clemons revised my comment, c) i replied by questioning the previously unknown (to me) ability of tpmc authors to "edit/censor/redact" user comments, d) clemons sent 2 emails to my registered tpmc email account confirming his revision, admitting discomfort with -- presumably -- a passage in my original response which he subsequently deleted, expressing his intent to restore the response in its original form, e) the entire topic/post was removed, f) the topic/post was restored with all user commentary intact."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/tpm-pravda.php
July 22, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see that as having happened in this instance. Can't believe he would remove his own post.
Would be very good to hear from Gary Cohen himself at this point.
July 22, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary and you and me and thee who are the "users" can't delete threads.
Must have been one of those TPMCafe daemons that bedevil this site.............
Huffpo is censoring/moderating user comments altho it's unclear to those affected why their posts don't make the cut.
How did the sensitive Ms Sklar get tipped to a TPMCafe thread featuring her email coversation in the first place?
Rachel?
July 22, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's back. Editorial comment.
July 22, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're worried about being off the record, you need to secure that assurance first. Simply stating that comments are off the record doesn't cut it. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, too.
July 22, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, the request for and assurance of confidentiality must precede the protected disclosure of information.
July 22, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Your Subject line to her was rude and your tone was rude. That's your business, but it's the fact.
2) In a spoken interview with a journalist, you typically can't postdate a comment with "by the way, this is not for attribution" when the cat's out of the bag. In a written exchange, whether you put the request at the end or the beginning, it's delivered as one.
3) Likely Rachel assumed that as a lifelong journalist you'd have an easy time with simple, smooth journalistic interaction. She's also quite likely aware that something could go wrong and wasn't so worried about you violating a simple request - nothing she stated was scandalous - but the fact is she stated in her response that the email was for private usage only, not for public dissemination, and that should have been respected. Many reporters get background info without permission for direct attribution/quoting, and without this background info, good reporting would grind to a halt.
4) Judging from your logic, you'd say that the White House trying to take away Helen Thomas' seat after some testy exchanges wasn't retribution. Rachel's analysis still holds - Lizza & the New Yorker have been out there in the field this election cycle as privy journalists, and now it looks like he's been dropped down in the pecking order and the Obama campaign background chatter makes it likely it was intentional. Wishing it away doesn't make it so.
5) Ryan Lizza has been a very prominent part of the 2008 coverage for McCain, Clinton and Obama. Pretending he's one of a pack trying to get a leftover ticket is disingenuous.
6) A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign flew the press pool to Chicago, not telling them he was staying behind in Washington to talk to Hillary. They protested at this treatment, but I suspect they'll get used to it over time.
July 22, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Yes, I intended to be, just as Mike Wallace occasionally used that approach.
2) No, her request for off the record and her reply could have been delivered separately. Again, standard practice is: the request for and assurance of confidentiality must precede the protected disclosure of information. I did go to journalism school.
3) First you say I was rude and then you say Rachel likely assumed I would interact "smoothly" with her. Pick one. Also, please see 2 above — again.
4) Helen Thomas was guaranteed a front-row seat by the longstanding tradition among the White House press corps. No reporter in the room was competing for her chair or would have taken it from her. The Bush White House's interference in the traditional seating arrangement is far different from the situation of 200 reporters competing for 40 seats on a plane with no pre-ordained seating arrangement.
5) See 4 above.
6) Irrelevant to this discussion.
If you're going to take a few digs at me because I support Obama, you'll have to come up with better arguments.
July 22, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, Chris Powers! You've won the Obscure Brushes with Fame Award.
July 22, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yuck yuck. Yawn.
July 22, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I don't the gasket wants you to.
July 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I don't think the gasket wants you to.
July 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Rachel Sklar and why do I care?
July 22, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you Google and find out.
July 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I Googled you, Chris.
No bylines to be found.
July 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a witch hunt, are you? Careful what you start.
July 22, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Sklar is a fox with questionable journalism skillz.
July 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - how fucking arrogant is this woman?
I'll say what I said on your first post - good on you. This is when I think the netroots really shine - right here and you doing an awesome job, Chris. You have my gratitude.
July 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There it is as I predicted before. At the end of your first post she made up (kind of) and, as you have shown us in this one, she is now breaking up with you.
Even though this is serious business as an illustration of how the MSM manufactures the product they sell; I am still laughing my as off and, if she is an adult, she will recognized being had and laugh at herself along with the rest of us. That is of course dependent upon how well she was raised if she has a sense of humor.
July 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So wait - Rachel's initial reply stated it was off the record? Or was it her second reply? If it was the first, I'd have to agree with her assertion that you did not have the right to republish.
But good job otherwise.
July 22, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, now I'm leaning toward Ripper's position, that both parties have to agree to go off the record.
July 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to the alleged rudeness of your e-mail, I can live with that; I don't like any of the rudeness on the internet so I think you were writing within norms. As to the off the record stuff, I don't know what the protocol is for e-mails so I'll defer to you guys. But, at the threshold, why is is so scandalous for Sklar to opine or infer that Senator Obama's campaign snubbed the New Yorker? I'd be pissed about the cover last week also. And, as Des writes above, I also had no problem presuming that the White House snubbed Helen Thomas. I know we're in the dog days of summer, but I'm thinking folks are protesting a bit much because it's a kick.
July 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza is a major journalist in this campaign, so that's why I would think it was a snub. So what? He's a big boy, and Obama's campaign can do what it wants. Working the refs is part of the game. The New Yorker gets a spanking, and not too many folks in the real world care. I sure as hell didn't until I read the enormous outrage it has apparently generated.
P.S. I also think it's fair for her to call you on your original decision not to use your name. E-mailing someone, as opposed to blogging like this, warrants affixing one's John Hancock, especially because you're a journalist Rip.
July 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you see? I did use my real name. That's where she got it to use in her final reply.
July 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but in your initial e-mail you did not, and at the same time you identified yourself as a journalist. I'm not a journalist as you are, but I guess I don't understand why one would e-mail a colleague without giving your name, especially when you suggest she's nuts. I dunno. I guess I'm an old fogey and will never get used to this internet etiquette. I never wrote a fellow attorney without identifying myself, and I have never written to, for example Josh Marshall without identifying myself.
July 22, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat: In my initial email, I did. Please see below.
July 22, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some good points, Bruce.
I certainly don't agree with Sklar's reasonings, they are mere speculation written as something more. One can't help, however, look at the exchange and not think it's an elaborate game of "Gotcha!" -- and that is part of the problem with the press today.
July 22, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never let facts get in the way of your bashing, clearthinker. Sorry, that's what's wrong with your contribution to the media. I wasn't playing "Gotcha," as my detailed explanation (to oceankat, below) of the sequence of events shows.
July 22, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only forty seats for two hundred media bottoms.
I would say that would clearly indicated that there is an 80% chance that it was not a snub. Forty pairs of buttocks were seated, so were 160 pairs of buttocks snubbed? If I were the Obama campaign, I would be looking for, around the clock, media exposure and coverage, rather than hoping to get a write up, in a magazine, a week or so later. I would fill every available seat with reporters that would be amplifying the trip around the entire country on a hourly basis. The New Yorker would not make the cut.
As for this Rachel person saying at the end that it was confidential, after she had not set the terms at the outset, how did that work out for Samantha Power, when she said the same thing at the end of an interview with that Scottish newspaper.
Samantha realized that she had stepped in it, and so did Ms.Sklar. That does not mean that they get to invoke retroactive confidentiality, and Samantha had a stronger claim that Ms. Sklar, since Ms. Sklar is a working journalist, and therefore can not claim ignorance of journalistic standards and practices.
July 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were sent a letter which included the caveat that the communication was off the record. I can see how a case could be made that it should have been made clear before the letter was sent. But you responded to the letter and made no mention that you were not consenting to an off the record conversation. I can see how a case could be made that all subsequent e-mails should be considered off the record. By not making it clear after the first letter it appears as though you gave tacit consent to her conditions.
July 22, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tacit doesn't cut it in the news business.
July 22, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Powers situation was brought up. When she said this is off the record the journalist immediately responded to it. You chose not to. Are you saying it would have been acceptable journalistic practice for that journalist to simply continue the interview, say nothing about Powers' albeit late request for an off the record interview, and use everything before and after? I think most in a situation like that would think at that point there was an agreement to it being off the record. It does feel like something of a con to not address the request for an off the record talk.
July 22, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sequence went like this:
1) I send a complaint about her substitution of opinion for fact. The complaint tells her I am a journalist in the first few words.
2) She replies with substantive information about her frame of mind and reasoning. At the very end of the email, by itself, spaced several lines down, so that I did not even see it at first, was "This email is off the record unless otherwise indicated."
I was not under any circumstances bound to secrecy by this line, coming as it did with the disclosure of pertinent information.
I replied to her, not expecting any further communication, given the umbrage she took at what I thought was a playful, if somewhat rude, subject line.
3) I therefore, with clear conscience, published this first exchange in the post by Gary Cohen.
4) She replied again, this time with no disclaimer, and I replied to her reply.
With clear right to publish her first reply, given that basic fairness required that I publish her continued defense and line of reasoning, and with no further disclaimers, it was not only my continued right but clear duty to the truth and to the both of us, to publish this second exchange.
Same with the third, and with her final reply. I edited nothing but my own name from the original exchange I posted. This was to preserve my anonymity on the worldwide web and here at TPM. As you will note, I sacrificed that longstanding anonymity to bring you this story in its entirety and in utter fairness and transparency.
If any of you still believe Rachel acted as ethically, you have my sympathies.
Got it now?
July 22, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that many commentators here see the harm in a reporter reporting opinion as fact. Creating news does harm both to our politics and to our media.
I'm disappointed that some commentators can't distinguish between making up the news and my accurate reporting of such an instance.
Some of this, from those such as readytoblowagasket and others, is merely personal grudge. I especially am tickled by the "hunchback" thing up top by the guy who never posts but likes to spam his comments everywhere.
Let me repeat for the slow learners:
Regarding use of the email exchange, I acted within journalistic standards, no matter what amateur opinions and hypotheticals are cast about here. Other journalists on this thread have uniformly verified this.
Rachel Sklar's attempt to justify her use of guesswork is antithetical to journalistic accountability. Her reasoning is flawed, as I and others have pointed out in numerous places throughout this thread. Her attempt to turn the tables on the reporter of an accurate and FULL account of our exchange is pathetic. And those who fall for it are the most pathetic of all.
July 22, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Rip, calling folks who question you "pathetic" doesn't smack of journalistic integrity or integrity in any manner, shape, or form. In fact, seems rather pathetic to me. But don't worry: you can count comments and take solace. Quite the standard indeed.
July 22, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't take it personally, bslev. I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular, but rather the whole mentality of buying into Rachel Sklar's diversionary attack on my ethics, which some here seem all too happy to purchase at the price of the facts. I have explained this all quite thoroughly, yet many have continued to make up their own facts. Come to think of it, you did repeatedly state that I hadn't given Rachel my real name in my first email, even after I explained too you I had. But I won't question your integrity for that. Only your powers of observation.
July 22, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am man enough to admit that I misread you on that point if, as you write, you did identify yourself by name in your initial e-mail. On that point, I apologize and eat humble pie. I stand by everthing else I have written however, however, and I would suggest that calling other posters pathetic detracts from your credibility. You can do better; I have seen it.
July 22, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a grudge against you, Chris. I was curious to read your work outside of TPM, so I Googled you. So what? You should have expected people would do that. Wouldn't you do the same in your life as a crackerjack reporter?
Since I didn't find anything, I have to include that detail with the rest of your story.
Whatever your story is, for a journalist, you're acting like a jackass. You give journalists a bad name. Why? Because you've made your mission personal: you're taking your anger out on Rachel Sklar. Could have something to do with your anger at your wife, who the fuck knows. You certainly don't.
In any case, it's completely unprofessional behavior for a journalist. If you want to return to journalism or become a serious blogger some day, you'll regret this little tantrum. It's not worth it.
July 22, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you'd like to reveal your real name, please refrain from dropping mine so casually. I go by a user name here, same as you.
You are completely, 100 percent, out of line. You should be ashamed.
July 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be futilely trying to embarrass some sense into you, but I'm not out of line. You're not only in the wrong, you're stupid. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of professional/public behavior vs. personal/private behavior. I can't imagine what kind of news organizations you ever worked for that would have allowed you to publish someone's e-mails after you ambushed the person.
First, you set Sklar up by goading her (which you admit!), then you deliberately elevate your credentials in order to string her along. Once you got something you thought was juicy, you post it in a blog post at Talking Points Memo (multiple times)! It's like a kind of entrapment. You and Mayhill Fowler are the reason politicians don't trust any "press."
Look, I don't have any problem whatsoever if you call out a blogger or reporter in a prominent media position who is misleading the public, Ripper. Go for it.
However. Publishing your *correspondence* on a website as popular as TPM is totally not cool and not kosher.
That's what's out of line. You're not exposing a truth, you're engaging in self-aggrandizement. Sorry, you're no Mike Wallace. You didn't get a big scoop.
Here's the stupid part: Rachel Sklar is an attorney, not a journalist. Do you want to get sued? If not, then don't try to fuck over an attorney, you moron! Sklar was quoting someone else's reporting, which you willfully misrepresented as her reporting. That's disingenuous on your part, and you know it, even if you won't admit it.
If you have any decent journalism training, then you know better. If you were trained by slimeballs, then you probably don't know any better.
So deny it all you want, Ripper, it's pure slime for you to post your personal correspondence with Sklar on *this* site. I've worked with plenty of career journalists, and I can't think of a single one who would have permitted a staffer to do that.
July 23, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing, you amazingly hateful little fucktard: I never elevated my credentials. I'm not at all surprised that you can't find my byline in a Google search, but I won't make my work history available to an imbecilic, hostile, one-man goon squad like you.
You say you know journalists. Sorry, asshole. I've been one for three decades. I've been a reporter, photographer, copy editor, managing editor and publisher. Note that not all of these positions involve a byline.
Bringing up my wife again would get your ass kicked into another zip code were you standing in front of me. It has no place in this discussion, but is just more of the slimy, mean innuendo that has become your specialty.
Despite everything that every other working journalist has posted here backing me up, you, readytoblowagaket, decide to throw my actual name around and drag it through your sliming pit. And you have the gall to warn me of libel. How pompous. How ridiculous. How presumptive. How hypocritical. How very unwise of you.
As a matter of fact, I was trained at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, the oldest one in the world. And consistently ranked in the top two or three journalism schools in the world. Where I was selected by the dean as standard bearer for my graduating class.
Don't lecture me, worm. Don't bring up my divorce, when you don't have the class, courage or integrity to reveal your real name or a single intimate, if painful, detail of your life.
You know nothing of ethics. Only hatred. God help you, because you must be bereft of real friends in the non-virtual world.
July 23, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What journalist besides destor backed you up? I don't see anyone in the business backing you up here.
You're responsible for what you say about your personal life on a public forum, fucktard. This isn't your personal blog. I do not owe you any respect when you show disrespect to others. I don't owe you anything, in fact.
July 23, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mandy backed me up, as well. How many journalist are backing you up here?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/rachel-sklars-answer-to-my-tpm.php#comment-2976605
July 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, you know I often agree with you and even when I don't (rarely) I find value in your perspective. But the reference to the wife here is just below the belt. Out of bounds. Personal Foul.
If you want to disagree with Ripper's journalistic or blogging ethics, then deal with them on that level.
July 23, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, dijamo, I meant it to be below the belt. I made a decision to say it because Ripper uses this site to air his dirty laundry. Just like Rachel Sklar, whatever he says in public can be used against him.
Call it extremely harsh. Call it downright mean. Call it a taste of his own medicine.
Call it tough love. Call it life.
Better it came from me than from someone else. It's meant to be a warning shot across the bow. After this, he's on his own.
I don't expect people to understand all of what I said because it's complex, but I chose my words and affect deliberately. Maybe someday Ripper will understand. Maybe he never will. That's up to him.
Beyond the personal aspect, the dishonesty as a professional journalist in what he did to set up Sklar is wrong. In a real job, he never would be permitted to do that. To present his dishonesty here to lay people as if he's justified is a terrible example.
As a professional journalist, Ripper knows better. I've worked in staff positions myself, and I know his conduct would get him fired. That he would present his behavior in this public forum as fair play without acknowledging the dishonesty of the trap he set is bullshit and he knows it.
The whole issue about whether Lizza was banned or not does not warrant a public trashing of Sklar on a public site that gets the amount of traffic TPM gets. The punishment does not fit the crime. And because of the mob mentality here, everyone throws a stone.
So yes, I could have chosen a less personal method for protest, but Ripper's M.O. is the personal. It's the language he understands.
Thanks for speaking your mind and heart as always, dijamo. I deeply respect your honesty.
July 23, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have blown the gasket and have demonstrated extreme animosity and irrationality in your comments. There is something terribly, deeply, tragically wrong with your mind.
But you disagree, don't you?
You are deeply confused about what constitutes private v. public subject matter and about when each is appropriate to post here. You have engaged in a vicious vendetta against my good name and have shown a willingness to investigate my personal life, to twist details of it into public darts, to insert my divorce into the discussion and to otherwise harm my reputation. You have become a troubled and frightening threat.
But you strongly disagree, don't you?
My presentation of the email exchange between Rachel Sklar and myself was entirely ethical. I was correct in posting that email exchange because it was NEVER off the record and because it served the public good to do so. Several real journalist have confirmed that in this thread.
But you want to see something else, don't you?
There was no deceit, no lie, no promise of confidentiality. I alerted her to my occupation and gave my real name, from the outset.
But you want to slime me anonymously, don't you?
Nothing I did or posted about Rachel Sklar attacked her on a personal level. My criticism was directed at her departure from the most basic journalistic requirements of fairness and accuracy. She made up a conclusion that she stated as fact. She accused a presidential candidate of harboring malice, all based on her cherry picking of circumstantial evidence. Even her primary source, Mike Allen, refrained from leveling such a wild accusation. No, that accusation was hers. And it was not just wrong, but beneath the most basic ethical standards that underpin American journalism.
Furthermore, Rachel Sklar is an influential voice in the national media, the Senior Contributing Editor for the Huffington Post. That made our exchange even more important to present publicly. I did so in its entirety, even sacrificing my longstanding anonymity here to reveal my real name publicly.
But you want to use that against me, don't you?
Try to understand that this isn't about me or Rachel Sklar's implied threat to "out" my identity or even your threatening attempts to Google up details of my personal and professional life so that you might disclose them here as revenge for some perceived slight on some forgotten thread.
But you disagree, don't you?
No, this is about a breach of ethics by a nationally known, professional journalist who falsely attacked a presidential candidate. Her ethical lapse is one of many such instances of media distortions in this important election year. The stakes could not be higher for the public.
Contrast my actions with your unwarranted, lying attacks on my character, professional conduct and personal life. What hateful logic would persuade you to depart so far from decency as to insert the subject of my wife into your screeds?
What dark, desperate hostility requires that you try to persuade others here that I have become the story, that I have been unethical and that my divorce explains the anger you would transpose onto my name?
But you take exception to this, don't you?
July 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can think whatever you like about me. I'd rather you were mad at me than at Rachel Sklar.
July 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather you didn't spend your time attacking me.
July 23, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let me repeat for the slow learners:"
When ever someone chooses to descend to ad hominem attacks in what is mostly a civil discussion its usually a sign that some of the objections are starting to ring a bit too close to truth for comfort.
July 22, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not close to the truth. Farther and farther from it.
July 22, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, it only seems "mostly civil" if you're not the one they're shooting at.
July 22, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. This turns out to be a wash. Rip probably could have made some good points about the tendency of reporters to substitute opinion as fact. Indeed, perhaps he could have explained how Ms. Sklar in this instance acted way beyond the pale of journalistic ethics. But unlike what I understand to be effective journalistic practice, this story has turned out to be all about the Rip the journalist, and whether his behavior conformed with the ethics he claims to protect. And he is now left with the last refuge of a political blogger, to wit, that most of the commenters think he's right so the rest of us are just pathetic. Journalistic standards indeed.
July 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper:
Here's the weird part: I agree with your general assessment of the Sklar situation. But you were somewhat aggressive with Sklar and you have been very aggressive here. Indeed, you seem to thrive on a confrontational attitude and look for trouble (at least with my posts you did).
So I ask you, sincerely, was it possible to expose the situation without the "gotcha" mentality? The fact is that I have met many journalists in my life and some are humble and see what they do as a higher purpose, and some think they are creation's gift to the world. I try to avoid the latter; I don't believe they are helping anyone's cause except their own personal one (ego, career, whatever).
And again, I ask, sincerely, what type of journalist were you? What medium did you work? TV? Radio? Newspaper? and were you MSM or more fringe (extreme right or left)?
July 22, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry if you believe I've been aggressive, clearthinker. Or that I "thrive on a confrontational attitude." I wish I was better at responding to people making up stuff about me and posting spiteful comments that have no basis in reality. Especially now that I've disclosed my real identity and they haven't.
I guess you missed my comments about your "gotcha" comments and how you've somehow twisted the sequence of events into something it wasn't.
As to your last questions: At one time or another, I worked in all three media you mention. They were, in some cases, medium-sized markets. In some cases, smaller markets. Most owners had a political bent, but it rarely if ever intruded into the newsroom. That is not the case today, which is one reason I withdrew from the profession. And that is all I will say.
July 22, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, that's exactly what I did do.
Indeed, a very few here, including you, have turned the comments into just that.
Not at all, bslev. My refuge is and always has been the facts. I am in possession of them. You feel entitled, like Rachel Sklar, to invent them when it suits you. Personal ethics indeed.
July 22, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you have the last word Rip. I am comfortable with those who respect me, and accept that there are those who do not.
July 22, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only you were comfortable enough to refrain from attacking those who have committed no wrong.
July 22, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment