Off-record, off-limits

Harvard professor Samantha Power quit her position as Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser after she was quoted in daily newspaper The Scotsman calling Hillary Clinton "a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything". The newspaper ignored Power's hasty parenthesis and put her on the record.

The journalist in question, Gerri Peev, argued that the whole interview was attributable, pointing out the rules of engagement had been thrashed out before the tape was running. Other journalists were aghast at Peev's apparent breach of trust, declaring all off-the-record material 'off-limits'.

Yet with so much grey area over what should and should not be quoted, reported and attributed in the public interest - neither The Scotsman nor The New York Times have any written rules on the subject - going 'off-the-record' is a question of judgement for the source; printing off-the-record comments a question of morality for journalists and editors. In this respect, both parties in the incident appear to have acquitted themselves poorly. 

Honesty is fatal

Power's indiscretion reveals she was never cut out for politics, much less for a job as a presidential candidate's mouthpiece. Presidential-aspirants need their closest aides to stay 'on message' for the entirety of a campaign, and not qualify their public positions in private.   More seriously, Power's loose lips raise questions about Barack Obama's judgement: why had he employed someone with no media savvy?  

Of course, politicians and their advisers often speak with journalists when there is far less at stake than the White House. In these cases, 'Chatham House rules' - when speakers are assured anonymity in return for their opinions - usually apply and benefit both source and journalist. Yet unfortunately for Power, Peev was playing by Queensberry rules rather than those of the Royal Institute of International Affairs salon.

Cultivating trust

Journalists need to cultivate trust in order to do their job properly. If they ignore journalistic protocol for fifteen minutes of byline glory on exclusive news content, top-level sources will feel uncomfortable about confiding in them in the future. As Ian Williams points out in The Guardian, "extending courtesy to interviewees and treating them fairly is a pragmatic principle as well as an ethical one".

All this makes The Scotsman's assertion to "serve our readers and not our leaders" sound a little glib. The Scotsman, a newspaper (like many others) with dwindling circulation figures, needs excellent sources far more than excellent sources need The Scotsman. Peev's breach of confidence will make most politicians think twice before speaking to journalists from the newspaper. Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard brainiac, will find gainful employment again. The real losers may be Peev, The Scotsman, and its readers.