I’m going to try to lay this out in three pieces. First, an article appears in Vanity Fair over the weekend implying among other things that Bill might be sleeping around while he’s on the road for Hillary:
Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.
Second, Bill blows up on the ropeline, handshaking supporters, he gets asked for a reaction to the article:
Former President Bill Clinton today unleashed a salty stream of epithets to describe former New York Times reporter and current Vanity Fair writer Todd Purdum, calling him “sleazy,” “dishonest,” “slimy” and a “scumbag.”
The former president made the comment at a local campaign event after I asked him if Purdum’s much-commented upon Vanity Fair story was weighing on his mind…
“[He’s] sleazy,” he said referring to Purdum. “He’s a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven’t read [the article]. But he told me there’s five or six just blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy,” the former president said.
When I reminded him that Purdum was married to his former press spokesperson Myers, Clinton was undeterred.
“That’s all right– he’s still a scumbag,” Clinton said. ” Let me tell ya– he’s one of the guys — he’s one of the guys that propagated all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He’s just a dishonest guy– can’t help it.”
Third, Bill Clinton has apologized for his language; but, another question is raised in the NY Times coverage of the incident:
Speaking to a reporter for the (Huffington Post) Web site — who campaign aides said did not identify herself as a journalist and said she hated the article before asking for his reaction — Mr. Clinton said the article was part of a pattern of media bias against Mrs. Clinton and in favor of her rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama.
A blogger should observe journalistic conventions if they want the rights and responsibilities of a reporter. I didn’t hear anything about blogging or reporting in the recording.
Huge denial issued by Team Clinton. They didn’t respond to most of it.
One thing they did respond to.
Purdum accuses Bill of vanity, and in the response they say Bill saved 1.4 million lives.
It hasn’t been this much fun to live in SD since George McGovern ran. Clinton was at my neighbor’s house last week and spoke for 1:20. Like him or hate, he’s a hell of a speaker.
ED, The notion that you must identify yourself as a reporter is debatable. When did it become a journalistic convention? Who made it one? A courtesy maybe.
And what difference does it make? Either someone said something or they did not say something. Does it really make any difference if they said it to a reporter or to a guy on the street? This “convention” implies that the guy on the street gets better quotes. How does that serve the public?
What generally crops up in ethics discussions is when someone says they are something OTHER than a reporter when they are indeed a reporter. Like pretending to be with the FBI.
These campaign aides are just whining. I doubt it was one-on-one and generally in a situation a slew of cameras with mics are aimed at someone. How many of those guys identify themselves as a reporter?
In other words, this is all bullshit. Did he notice that the reporter was probably holding a notepad or a recorder?
John, I was referring to an “opportunity” to remark Off The Record.
I was given the understanding that any provision for Off The Record remarks must be made beforehand. There is no hindsight or after-the-fact right.
This is what I’ve been told by a couple of newspaper editors in recent years – specifically discussing “Off the Record” interviews.
If you don’t know you’re talking to a reporter, how do you know you might wish to be off the record?
In fact, 1st draft, I included a note about “Off The Record” rights – after the final comment. Then, deleted it because I figured it might drag things OT. 🙂
Bill Clinton sleeps around, no way! That is what happens when you are married to a lesbian and maintain a sham marriage only to further each other’s political career.
OK..this is actually a very interesting point you bring up. AND it would be great to hear some ethics folks debate it. You are correct about off-the-record. You cannot do it after the fact. It has to be agreed upon in advance. That said I have allowed after-the-fact OTR comments from folks since I am not a maniac about burning people. The problem here, it seems to me, is that if you do not want something quoted EVER you would not be talking to ANYONE! Was he trying to pick up this woman? Generally speaking off-the-record chats are done for deep background, not to protect casual conversation although that is often done too. Whatever the case, it’s the speaker’s responsibility in all situations. Clinton is not an amateur in this regard. In fact he should expect everyone to be a reporter. With some average naive guy I would be more sympathetic. So I do not think this is any sort of ethical breach.
Eideard–your standard doesn’t make any sense to me. If you are talking to a “non-reporter” a politician has the impression he is on the record as anyone can turn around and repeat it. So–not knowing the status of whom you are talking to puts you on the higher guard.
I’m missing something.
I like that flap a while back in England when Powers had to quit Obamas team after being accurately quoted by a journalist. Powers wasn’t allowed to call “off the record” after the statement was made which evidently is done fairly often in the States?
I don’t know who the bigger whore is. Clinton (take your pick) or the USA Press (take your pick).
#7–JCD–the corruption of our press begins when they think accurate reporting is burning a politician. What you evidence to me is your concern not to burn your own access to those politicians in the future. It all begins with little secrets and winds up where we are now–a press core that acts more like a stenography pool than the fourth estate at best and as a cheer leading section to our great harm as demonstrated in the runup to Iraq.
Hence the low ratings for the press. Its all well deserved.
Eideard, thanks for this posting. Although it took me some time to get through it, the “escapades” article was outstanding. A very insightful and interesting article. While reading this article I had the feeling of someone who at the same time was totally immersed in a good mystery while watching a train wreck.
Thanks again.
BTW, does this article mean that Vanity Fair is part of the “Vast Media Conspiracy?”
I think It’s time for Bill to load up the car and header on home.
Irony: The method of Mr. Clinton’s response to the Vanity Fair article exactly proving in splendid detail the point of the Vanity Fair article.
Frankly, I can’t imagine that man sleeping around anymore, he doesn’t look all that healthy. He looks physically ill.
As a former (young) reporter, it was made clear to us in school and beyond that there is no such thing as “off the record.” There are agreements to be what the interviewee feels is off the record, but that doesn’t always keep it out of print.
Off the record is used as a bargaining chip for trust between parties, nothing more. Often it is offered in exchange for access or exclusivity. Perhaps a deep ethics debate is required – does the relative importance of what was discovered off the record outweigh the agreement to keep the info as such? Is the off the record agreement truly binding in any way?
And, off the record only applies to pre-arranged interviews. I believe someone already made the point that, to someone like Bill especially, *everyone* is a reporter.
Reporters are under no obligation to identify themselves as such – I have no idea what soggy marsh that crawled out of. If you talk to your non-reporter friend who takes notes of the conversation and turns them over to a reporter, wouldn’t the reporter have a first-hand account only slightly removed from if they had done the questioning first-hand (and unidentified)?
The point of “Off the Record” legally being required beforehand is one I’ve participated in – even within the few years I’ve been involved with this blog. Having to do with two interviews – one for a newspaper article and a second which started out the same; but, turned out to be for a book written by the second journalist – about a court case of which I was known to have inside knowledge.
Both times, I preceded interviews with critical segments being “off the record” until I could evaluate how that info was going to be used in the final product. In the first case, it looked like an objective piece of reporting and I withdrew the rider. In the second case – learning that this was going to be a book, more of an opinion piece, learning more about the sleazy politics of this particular journalist – I halted further interviews and reinforced the “off the record” proviso – reminding him, I had my own copies of the first interview.
I was glad I’d been so advised by a newspaper publisher.
Now – back to the topic. John nailed it when he said, “if you do not want something quoted EVER you would not be talking to ANYONE!”.
Public figures waltzing down a ropeline are confronting civilians and journalists, bloggers, whatever, every day. Everyone and their dog is out there with a still or video camera. If you fart in public, you can count on it showing up on YouTube.
Bill Clinton should know better.
#14 – no doubt your journalism 201 prof thought “off the record” only applied to pre-arranged interviews. Times change. I’ve been in media scrums where it happens on the spot.
And I believe that’s what holds up in the courts, nowadays.
As I’ve watched Bill’s personality deteriorate, the public blowups, the confrontational attitudes with the press and public, a question arises: Does Bill have a problem? i.e. the kind that needs to be addressed in rehab.
Gee…16 years of being either the whipping boy or the actual devil for every right wing ideologue who thinks they have a snappy bit of dialog in the country..and he seems a little testy? I’ve seen everyone in this blog lose it after a perceived slight to a distant ancestor….
..and don’t tell me that’s the business he’s in, he’s supposed to take it. If he is, certainly the reporter is also…and he should be happy at getting off lightly. “sleazy..dishonest…scumbag” are all just little face slaps compared to the invective I’ve heard prominent radio and newspaper personalities use again him…^_^
I’ll agree with you on the “off the record” crap..and identifying yourself as a reporter first…but isn’t it human nature to respond to someone who has indicated that they agree with you and are on your side with a slightly more earthy set of responses? Someone who is showing some sympathy? As in “…that Bush is an idiot” with “..and did you see what the dumb @#%*)@# did today” What that reporter in line did was sandbagging…pretending to be something they were not in order to hopefully elicit a response that might otherwise only be heard by friends….and I don’t know about you…but I use a whole different set of words with my friends than I do out at the local supermarket…^_^ Or even here….
[edit: comments guide]
Is this bills theme song?
The devil wore a blue dress.
#17, he’s not deteriorating. He’s always been this way. It’s the press that has been more adversarial, so he’s acting up more, and they are reporting it more.
For example, when he was president, he blew up at a reporter who asked him when he would hold a press conference. The media at the time didn’t report it much.
Having read the Vanity Fair article, I don’t think Slick Willie can control himself. He was born a poor boy, and now that he’s been prez, is out to get all he can. Uses his perceived power to commandeer women and money for personal use… My 2 cents
Bobbo..I’m not talking about burning a politician I am talking about burning a source who is giving you good inside stuff. I should blow his cover and get him fired because he failed to follow the rules? What is wrong with you?
#22–JDC==I just woke up and was going to update my post to clarify an ambiguity that is almost always present. “The Media” covers a lot of disparate and varied elements and it follows that those that report on those elements do too.
Its the difference between day and night the difference between an investigative reporter on a national scandal and a technical maven reporting on a product review/industry trends.
Should a deep throat source have their confidentiality maintained in order to mark the trail?==Of course.
Should illegal bride taking of an official be kept secret in order to get future stories?==Few would say yes.
So, I think we all agree on the main points and disagreement is in the ambiguity.
I’m just upset the Washington Press Corp isn’t doing its job–the lack of follow up/challenging questions. I think a few of those name reporters should get kicked out of the daily briefing room or not called upon for being too aggressive until there is no one left in the room. Let the President/Congressman/Governor shill for themselves without getting the stamp of approval from a fawning press.
I haven’t seen John C Dvorak fawn on any political leaders in this blog, so, I’d be a happy camper if my router would assign an IP address.
Regarding the Vanity Fair blow up, “Morning Joe” panel was in general agreement this morning that “something was wrong” with the reporter not identifying themselves as such. I still don’t get that and I don’t think there is any protection to any politician trying to get something not published by claiming it was off the record. Those are unenforceable agreements hinging on the “honor” of the participants. There is NO reporter shield provision in Federal Law. Reporters have gone to jail to protect sources–sometimes nobly, other times to hype their story and own position.
Maybe all interviewees should be Mirandized? I will keep your identification secret unless your background information places you in violation of the law and I change my mind? How many pages would an appropriate “off the record” agreement be?
JCD–thank you for an open/informative/entertaining blog. Its one of the best, and you must have much to do with that. bobbo/curmudgeon in training.
I think we should talk about the future second lady of this nation with a little more respect.
Second lady. Ha. Story of Bill’s adult life.
#23, JCD
Bobbo, … What is wrong with you?
Aahh, so we’re not the only ones stumped on that.
#24, Bobbo,
Should illegal bride taking of an official be kept secret in order to get future stories?
I dunno. I guess it would depend on why the bride is illegal. Is she a wetback looking for a greencard, is she underage, polygamy, or what ever?
Hey Catshit==glad to see you back posting in good form===not in correcting typos like some frustrated schoolmarm but in silencing Thomas regarding capital punishment. Good stuff==now leave me alone!!!!
#15 – Cripes, a friend from back in the day emailed to remind me that Hillary worked on the same court case.
Phew!
Speaking of Mr. Clinton:
It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. Moreover, there are innumerable copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.