Of course, Politico’s article would have been better with more specifics. But if the core bit of news, about the allegations and the settlements, was all Politico could pin down, it was still worth reporting. Engelberg wrote to me that the non-disclosure agreements were not an “insurmountable barrier” to unearthing more details prior to publication, and that some of the information that has since come to light, like the size of the settlements, “would have been immensely helpful to readers of the first story.” Like Shafer, he pointed to The Washington Post’s coverage of the Bob Packwood scandal, which landed with a devastating, incontrovertible wallop. And he suggested that the lack of specifics may explain why many Republican voters appear to be brushing the story aside.
But the fact that further details have come out in the wake of Politico’s reporting doesn’t prove those details could have been uncovered prior to the first story’s publication. On this point, Politico’s Harris had a persuasive reply. “Do [Shafer and Engelberg] hold their views strongly enough that they would have been prepared to stop newsworthy information about a presidential candidate from going into the public domain because only some questions, and not all, were answered?” he wrote via e-mail. “The main issue in their critiques is whether the right call is to share no newsworthy information until we can answer all the questions that a curious person might have. In my experience, that is just not how reporting works—answers come out over time, by returning over and over to important questions with more reporting and more stories.”
Stretched too far, this defense of “iterative” reporting can be used to excuse errors or trafficking in rumor. But that’s not the case here. Politico reported what it knew. Though the presentation of the story could have—and should have—been fairer to Cain on a couple points, what it reported has held up. And what it reported was, on its own, newsworthy.
To answer John Harris's question, yes, journalists--including Politico journalists--hold back "newsworthy information" all the time in the preparation of their stories.
#1 Posted by Jack Shafer, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 04:09 PM
I think Mr Shafer has his quotation marks misplaced. It should be "...'journalists' hold back newsworthy information all the time."
There simply is no journalistic reason to withhold newsworthy information. There may be other reasons, ie other agendas that the 'journalist' is pursuing. I'm sure there are journalists who are reluctant to put out information that hurts a cause they believe in, or who withhold information so that they can come out with a more damaging attack later on someone they don't like. But those are political reasons, not journalistic reasons.
Or possibly the journalist cherishes the role of gatekeeper more than that of newsgatherer. That's pure corruption, in my view.
#2 Posted by Bob Gardner, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 05:57 PM
Politico has always been more a gossip rag than a contributor to effective political understanding. It's politics for the reality show generation.
So yeah, I'm not too interested in the Raising Cain drama because when I see sex featured in a political column, I know it's either about someone being stupid and getting caught or about someone getting angry and getting blood. The article's purpose is to get the public leering at a politician's groin and not their policy positions. Sometimes it works; as it appears to be doing in the case of Cain, Spitzer and others; and sometimes it doesn't; as it didn't in the case of Vitter and Schwarzenegger (and it'd be a good study taken to find out why).
But it's unacceptable to print details like this without for sure confirmation of the veracity of the implied acts. The new York times did this to John McCain and The times suffered for it and HP lost a CEO over purile innuendo and has not been the same company since.
And even the cases where the allegations are established, such as in Clarence Thomas's case, the sexual spotlight drives focus away from more relevant ethical issues.
Responsible media need to be aware of the damage their rumors can do to the rumor spreader, the rumor subject, and the general debate. Unless you have it established on record what sexual misteps a person did, it shouldn't be reported. In the case that it is established, it should be reported with due focus and not be allowed to suck the air out of the political room.
We're supposed to be contributing to the public's education, not its appetite.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 06:37 PM
i would agree with thimbles if these were just rumors, but these were formal charges. The existence of these charges shouldn't be kept from the public.
#4 Posted by bob gardner, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 12:32 PM
Bob Gardner wrote: The existence of these charges shouldn't be kept from the public.
padikiller wonders: You mean like the name of Obama's cocaine dealer has been kept from the public?
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 12:51 PM
"i would agree with thimbles if these were just rumors, but these were formal charges."
But that's the thing, these were settled charges, not proven ones:
"two female subordinates accused a presidential candidate of improper behavior, and those allegations prompted a response that involved monetary settlements, non-disclosure agreements, and their departure from their jobs"
Unless you have other evidence to say otherwise, you don't know if the settlement was done to protect a guilty man from punishment or to protect an innocent man from embarrassment. Until a journalist establishes that, he should avoid publishing in case he ends up doing to an innocent man what the settlement was intended to avoid. Once you establish guilt, publish and punish I say, but before then? What's the rush?
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 01:15 PM
Thimbles, I agree with you (!).
Are you sure you're really Thimbles? Or are you, like, a Bizarro-world Thimbles?
(Just kidding. Nice to see some common ground here.)
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 08:44 AM
JLD wrote: Thimbles, I agree with you (!).
padikiller wonders: Isn't this one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse?
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 09:35 AM
Thimbles:
Didn't Politico bend over backwards to give Cain a chance to respond and add detail? (I seem to recall that they tried to get him to respond/comment for 10 days or so before they went live with the story.)
When the outcomes of cases like these are buried under NDA's, aren't you forced to go with less-than-100% of the facts, since those facts have been deliberately hidden?
I agree that Politico is not exactly in the front ranks of great journalism on a day-to-day basis, but the ire directed at them here smells to me like a big case of "shoot the messenger".
#9 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 10:38 AM
"When the outcomes of cases like these are buried under NDA's, aren't you forced to go with less-than-100% of the facts, since those facts have been deliberately hidden?"
That is an issue and if a guy has 20 settlements covered by NDA's, that's a very odd pattern worth exploring it not reporting.
I think though, in the end, I go with Blackstone.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 01:19 PM
As a journalist, I had the same angry reaction as Shafer and Engelberg did when the Politico story came out, and I haven't changed my mind either. I don't find Greg Marx's counterarguments at all convincing. Politico obviously did not report everything it knew because it knew the names of the sources and the alleged harassment victims but did not report them. It's impossible for readers to evaluate the credibility of a story without knowing more about the sources, or at least the nature of the documents relied upon. The Clarence Thomas case was quite different because an accuser came forward publicly with specifics, and we could evaluate her credibility. I well understand why the alleged victims in this case would not want to identify themselves. But that doesn't let the media off the hook. They don't have a publishable story until they can publish details that make the story verifiable. And I disagree with Marx that Politico published enough details of the alleged misconduct to enable readers to make a judgment. Sexual harassment is a very fact-specific offense and we readers can't make a reasonable judgment based on the vague, unsourced allegations that were offered.
#11 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 03:28 PM
All sex scandal stories are created equal, some more equal than others.
#12 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 03:46 PM
There will be blowback.
#13 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 04:51 PM
Yeah, but the question is, was there backblowing?
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 05:24 PM