No matter what, Halperin and Heilemann have some explaining to do. Now that Reid’s camp has confirmed that the comments were made to the Game Change authors, Halperin and Heilemann may feel that they can discuss what happened here and their decision to use the quotes. Even if they still feel obligated not to corroborate his revelation, they could talk through the bounds of their sourcing agreement, and what they feel like it entitled them to do, in a range of hypotheticals.
Remember, as their publicist says, the two will be doing one interview on their methodology. I wouldn’t want to miss it.
Check out our News Meeting question on the Game Change attribution saga here.
Good piece, but you've got Halperin and Heilemann's employers reversed up at the top of the post.
#1 Posted by Mike P, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 02:01 PM
Oops. Thanks--should be fixed now.
#2 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 02:58 PM
What this episode demonstrates, ultimately, is that journalism really has no standards, at least at the national level. The issue over whether H/H "burned" Reid or not is just splitting hairs. It actually isn't that damaging to Reid. It is damaging to journalism, and to those of you, Mr. Hendler (and The Editors), who try to promote better journalism and try to pretend that journalism has some kind of standards. As a journo friend told me, these are ultimately just ad hoc agreements between reporters and their sources, and they mean nothing that is actually enforceable.
If H/H actually did "burn" Reid, or if their screeds against the ladies are disproven, they will pay no price for that. They will still have their jobs. Other journos will never denounce them. Even now when mainstream journos weigh in, the very few who have, they preface their remarks by observing how much "respect" they have for these scumbags' work. Mark Ambinder and Andrew Sullivan for two, just today. Is anyone going to factcheck these operatives? PolitiFact? CJR?
Because this book is nothing but trashy gossip by two slimy, dishonest political operatives whom you and your colleagues confer the status of "journalist." The fact that you seriously debate exactly how these two scumbags encountered the quote is evidence of the corruption of journalism. At the regional level, or at the "new media" level, no writer of this kind of vicious trash would be able to get away with this kind of atrocity. But these two dishonest mediocrities, by virtue of their beltway "insider" status and their highly paid positions on national print publications, will make a lot of money to provide the fodder for giddy, malicious cocktail chatter for months and perhaps years to come. That's sad, for those of us who value good journalism.
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 13 Jan 2010 at 07:59 PM
What I find disgusting is that their fellow journalists continue to use this deep background tactic to perpetuate this gutter gossip by not identifying the book or authors. Words to the effect “according to a book coming out this week” is all they care to say.
When the world has a crisis such as Haiti, how does this deep background type of journalism swallowing so many information transmitters, impact their reporting capabilities? What has happened to responsible facts with truth and honesty? My belief is that "this book" is outrageous trash as it smears so many with the only gain being dollars in the authors' and publisher’s pockets.
#4 Posted by Mary Elizabeth, CJR on Thu 14 Jan 2010 at 12:43 PM