Takes Two to Make a Secret

The Obama campaign's moronic "D-Punjab" memo isn't a very interesting issue, but it prompts Karen Tumulty to bring up one with a bit more meat:

The answer to this is, campaigns should not be allowed to distribute things on a NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION basis. Both NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION and OFF THE RECORD (and their cousins, BACKGROUND and DEEP BACKGROUND) are understandings that are agreed to mutually by a source and a reporter. What I've noticed about this cycle is that campaigns (and not just Obama's) are falling into a bad and sloppy habit of sending out mass hit pieces by e-mail and demanding anonymity. As far as I am concerned, unless I have agreed in advance to accept a specific piece of material from a source on a limited or not for attribution basis, these unilateral declarations of anonymity mean nothing.

I agree. What's more, all it takes to put a stop to this kind of thing is a little media solidarity. Nobody really wants to be the first reporter to burn a unilateral declaration of anonymity out of fear of being taken off distribution lists, thus giving the competition a leg up. All it would take, however, is for a smallish critical mass of journalists to stop respecting unilateral declarations and the whole practice would fall apart. So, for the record, I concur; unless I agree in advance not to identify the source of something (for which I would expect something approaching a good reason), then the truth will be told.

Comments

Unfortunately, the media is so lazy that they've grown accustomed to having other campaigns write their stories for them. So this won't change.

Posted by AP | June 19, 2007 7:51 AM

Hmm, this is the first I've heard of this controversy. I wonder if, like with the Geffen interview, Obama will publicly deplore the deeply unsettling actions of his campaign, clearly mired in the old politics of attack-and-smear (aka running a nationwide campaign for the presidency), while of course not firing anyone.

How long does Obama get away with the New Politics schtick? Democrats are always tarred with the hypocrisy brush, and I worry Obama may be inviting it.

Posted by Marshall | June 19, 2007 8:34 AM

Why doesn't obama just come out and say he doesn't like Indians, kinda like Joe Biden?

Posted by Punjabi Kaffir | June 19, 2007 8:52 AM

I agree with the default attribution rule, but there's also a deeper point here: reporters shouldn't ever agree to withhold attribution from oppo research sent out by a campaign -- or, at best, it should be exceedingly rare. The fact that Obama is sending out smears on Clinton, and vice versa, is of legitimate public interest, at least as much as the content of the smears themselves. I can think of no legitimate reason for a journalist to agree not to report that fact, even if it means the smears don't get reported in the first place. Believe me, faced with the choice, Obama (and Hillary and Edwards, and everyone else) will choose to continue with the cheap shots even if they are identified.

Posted by Glenn | June 19, 2007 9:25 AM

Oh, so now that anonymous hit pieces may redound to the benefit of *DEMOCRATS* the media decides to rediscover journalistic standards, even while the New York Times continues to let "senior administration officials" use its front page as a sandbox? Nice to see those principles come out of hibernation now that they aren't a threat to the Bush-Cheney Administration and their propaganda-propagation machine.

You stay classy, MSM.

Posted by Chris | June 19, 2007 10:47 AM

Obama's campaign is bigoted.

Matthew finds that not interesting? Apparently Matthew tjhinks the bigotry angle is just a rhetorical trick Democrats can use against Republicans.

Let's put it this way. Somebody on Obama's staff is a bigot. If Obama doesn't fire him or her, then Obama is condoning bigotry.

Posted by Al | June 19, 2007 11:57 AM

Isn't the traditional puzzle about this that a reporter can't always kow that there's good reason to agree to anonymity before seeing the document or hearing the information? To put it the other way, the anonymous source can't successfully communicate the reason for anonymity without communicating the information-- ex hypothesi without the protection of anonymity.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy | June 19, 2007 2:24 PM

This connects to the issue of the subpeonas of journalists in the Valerie Plame matter. Simply put, journalists grant anonymity way too much. It should really be reserved for situations where the value of the information to the public outweighs the cost of permitting the source to hide behind the reporter.

In other words, Watergate and other forms of whistle-blowing: yes. Gossip and political hits: no. Period. Had the media been following these rules, the Bush Administration would have had much more difficulty mounting its campaign against Joseph Wilson and Ms. Plame.

This is also the reason why we have to be careful about shield laws. Shield laws that protect the whistleblowing source of a reporter might be fine, but shield laws that protect people who launch anonymous hits in the news media are not.

The thing is, I think a lot of anonymity is not the product of actual shoe-leather reporting but rather egotistical Washington journalists who love to be part of the club and to be receiving information that the public is not privy to. I mean, really, does it matter if Obama takes you off his blast e-mail mailing list? Is there anything involved in this other than ego?

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 19, 2007 2:36 PM