Everything Is On The Record
During the 2008 election, citizen journalist for Huffington Post's OffTheBus project, Mayhill Fowler dropped two of the biggest blows to the presidential campaign. Fowler reported on Barack Obama's statements at a fundraiser she attended that was closed to the press. Yet, Fowler wasn't just a citizen journalist, she was also a financial contributor to the Obama campaign, which granted her access to the event.
During the fundraiser, Obama, while talking about disappointment in the American Midwest, said, "...And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they clung to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Fowler recorded these comments, and published them in the Huffington Post.
Fowler's decision to even attend the fundraiser at all as a financial contributor to the campaign is noteworthy. Did she attend the event under the guise of a supporter in order to cover the fundraiser for OffTheBus? Or did the shock of hearing Obama's remarks simply compel her to report on them?
Additionally, Fowler's attendance of the event could be seen as a lack of objectivity, or inherent bias. However, the fact that Fowler choose to record Obama's statements, and publicly criticize and expose a candidate that she supported, proves that her bias did not affect her reporting.
Most argue that public figures should behave like they are always being recorded. In the L.A. Times article " 'Citizen journalist' broke Obama story", Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor, said, "We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear...You have to assume that everything is on the record. There's no getting around that anymore."
The second blow that Fowler delivered was when she asked Bill Clinton about a Vanity Fair article that was written about him. According to another L.A. Times article, "How Mayhill Fowler got online scoops about Obama and Bill Clinton", it occured at a local campaign event for his wife, Hilary Clinton. Fowler asked Clinton a question that set him off on an inappropriate three-minute tangent. First, Fowler doesn't identify herself as a journalist, and then asks Clinton "What do you think of that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?" To which Clinton responds ,calling the journalist, Todd Purdum, "sleazy", "dishonest" and "a scumbag".
I find Fowler use of the phrase "hatchet job" questionable because she appears to align herself with Clinton, as if she's on his side. She also fails to mention the Vanity Fair journalist's name, which seems strange. As a journalist covering the campaign, Fowler likely knew Purdum's name. The way that Fowler phrased her question to Clinton appears to be intentional.
Does it make her reporting unethical? Did her failure to disclose her journalistic association, and her phrasing of the question, trick Clinton into embarrassing himself with a sprawling rant?
The way I see it, a public figure like Bill Clinton should know that anything controversial he says in a public, or even private, sphere, is likely to make it into the press. Therefore I wouldn't consider Fowler's coverage, while questionable in parts, unethical.
During the fundraiser, Obama, while talking about disappointment in the American Midwest, said, "...And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they clung to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Fowler recorded these comments, and published them in the Huffington Post.
Fowler's decision to even attend the fundraiser at all as a financial contributor to the campaign is noteworthy. Did she attend the event under the guise of a supporter in order to cover the fundraiser for OffTheBus? Or did the shock of hearing Obama's remarks simply compel her to report on them?
Additionally, Fowler's attendance of the event could be seen as a lack of objectivity, or inherent bias. However, the fact that Fowler choose to record Obama's statements, and publicly criticize and expose a candidate that she supported, proves that her bias did not affect her reporting.
Most argue that public figures should behave like they are always being recorded. In the L.A. Times article " 'Citizen journalist' broke Obama story", Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor, said, "We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear...You have to assume that everything is on the record. There's no getting around that anymore."
The second blow that Fowler delivered was when she asked Bill Clinton about a Vanity Fair article that was written about him. According to another L.A. Times article, "How Mayhill Fowler got online scoops about Obama and Bill Clinton", it occured at a local campaign event for his wife, Hilary Clinton. Fowler asked Clinton a question that set him off on an inappropriate three-minute tangent. First, Fowler doesn't identify herself as a journalist, and then asks Clinton "What do you think of that hatchet job somebody did on you in Vanity Fair?" To which Clinton responds ,calling the journalist, Todd Purdum, "sleazy", "dishonest" and "a scumbag".
I find Fowler use of the phrase "hatchet job" questionable because she appears to align herself with Clinton, as if she's on his side. She also fails to mention the Vanity Fair journalist's name, which seems strange. As a journalist covering the campaign, Fowler likely knew Purdum's name. The way that Fowler phrased her question to Clinton appears to be intentional.
Does it make her reporting unethical? Did her failure to disclose her journalistic association, and her phrasing of the question, trick Clinton into embarrassing himself with a sprawling rant?
The way I see it, a public figure like Bill Clinton should know that anything controversial he says in a public, or even private, sphere, is likely to make it into the press. Therefore I wouldn't consider Fowler's coverage, while questionable in parts, unethical.
Comments
Post a Comment