She continues: “Some months ago, when I accepted the invitation to speak to a roomful of journalism
professors, no one said anything about a nationally televised event. There is a difference
between appearing before a room of 50 or so professors and speaking on national
television, as I’m sure you recognize. I did not agree to do the latter, and notwithstanding
my willingness—as you note—to appear on C-Span dozens of times in the past, whether
to do so remains, it seems to me, a matter in which I still have a say. I am neither a C-
Span employee nor a public official. My past voluntary appearances do not give C-Span
rights in perpetuity to broadcast events at which I appear, whether I agree or not. In fact,
you may or may not be aware that over the years I have from time to time declined to
appear at events that I had assumed were to be private when, at the last minute, I was
informed that C-Span coverage was a fait accompli.”
- 1
- 2




Underlying the acid raincloud stirred up by CJR's "Hurricane Linda" piece is a fundamental--but increasingly common--misunderstanding of the rules: Just because someone sends you an e-mail the night before you're scheduled to show up for some event doesn't mean you've "received" it. Unless the assumption is that we are all to be enslaved by our Blackberries and iPhones, day and night, an e-mail that has not been read and replied to, cannot be said to have been "received." Gal Beckerman comes to the spurious conclusion that Linda Greenhouse has ignored the question of whether she received the organizer's e-mail, a point immediately contradicted by Ms. Greenhouse's assertion that she didn't know C-SPAN would be at the event until she got there and saw the cameras.
Posted by Bruce Newman
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 01:17 PM
There's a real dumb idea hidden in all this. If Greenhouse and her ilk think that any panel is somehow less public than some other panel, they are cruising for a bruising. Ask Eason Jordan about that one.
The idea that's in flux here is what kind of public persona journalists are supposed to adopt, and the subject is an enormous mess. The ethos I learned as a cub is now in conflict by the new ethics I've learned by being online; our monastic-style ideal puts us in conflict with both ourselves and basic observation, since print journalists who agree to speak provocatively tend to get more airtime and, ultimately, greater prestige and financial reward.
But enough with the prima donna outrage and the handwringing about criticism. If you agree to speak in public, speak in public. If it matters to you whether it's nominally a private setting or a televised one, then its time to examine your integrity. Candor may be dangerous, but selective candor is hypocritical -- and therefore deadly.
Posted by Daniel
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 01:21 PM
Before I could venture an opinion on Ms. Greenhouse's decision, I would like to know: Who, or which organization, sponsored and organized this "panel"? Where was it held? Who else, besides the two people you mentioned, was on the panel? Were those invited told (before the email you cited) that the discussion open to all, including the media, and was therefore on-the-record?
Did other reporters cover the event?
This information would be helpful.
Posted by michael
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 03:45 PM
I don't know what Ms. Greenhouse was going to say that she could not say to a national audience. She should know better. With cellphone cameras, etc., A panel discussion is just as public as shouting something on the village square. She must think she is a judge or some other important person, rather than just a small step up from a police reporter. What is she afraid of?
Posted by Max E. Edison
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 04:15 PM
I would suggest C-Span, from this point forward, decline to broadcast events in which Ms. Greenhouse is a participant. This may mean C-Span may not be covering some abortion rights marches.
The fact that the journalism professor didn't just tell Ms. Greenhouse to buzz off is embarrassing. She is a poor public speaker anyway, and a panel with Lyle Denniston and Dahlia Lithwick only would be well worth listening to.
Posted by Dexter Westbrook
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 04:48 PM
Just another nail in the coffin of the mainstream media.
Posted by outback71
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 05:07 PM
Greenhouse is arrogant and ignorant and obviously not understanding of the idea of appearing on a panel. Is everyone in attendance supposed to have their memory wiped clean upon leaving the discussion?
Posted by TVnewsWA
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 06:19 PM
This is incident presents a wonderful opportunity for AEJMC to incorporate Bill Moyers' wonderful and exciting analysis of Journalism today, the speech he gave the day Ms. Greenhouse behaved like a Rove-trained White House lackey. How sad that Ms. Gajda does not grasp the inherent concepts Mr. Moyers enunciated for teachers and practicioners of journalism.
They both should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by Jaywynne
on Fri 10 Aug 2007 at 09:25 PM
Linda Greenhouse has been a strange and weird character for many years: just ask her opinion of the 10th Amendment and watch her reaction.
Posted by E Joseph West
on Sat 11 Aug 2007 at 06:00 AM
As someone who occasionally speaks on panels, I always assume that somebody in the press is covering the event. While it's obvious when TV is covering an event, a radio reporter could have been broadcasting live or for a later live broadcast without Greenhouse's knowledge. I don't understand Greenhouse's beef. We as journalists get mad when we're told that we can't cover an event where the general public is invited so I don't understand why Greenhouse, or any other journalist would object to having cameras cover a public event where they are speaking or participating in as part of a panel
Posted by oorfenegro
on Mon 13 Aug 2007 at 10:31 AM
Whether she read the e-mail or not, Greenhouse's Scalia-like behavior is illustrative of the height of media elitism where some journalists think themselves so hallowed, important and above reproach that they forget who they really and ultimately work for -- the general public.
If you can't say anything in public that you can't say in front of a TV camera, stay home or refrain from public speaking activities.
I'm a fellow journalist -- Ruben Rosario, a columnist at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I do many panels, and I am willing to talk publicly about what I do and most of what I know with everyone, from the Supreme Court Justice to the one who cleans his or her office toilet.
C-Span got dissed big time here. I would have bounced Greenhouse off the panel and allowed the station to shoot it with the other two panelists.
Posted by muckymuck
on Mon 13 Aug 2007 at 01:59 PM