The media culture clash: Samantha Power vs the British press

Samantha Power, Barack Obama's now ex-campaign adviser, might have spent her childhood years in Ireland
but the experience obviously didn't prepare her for her face-to-face encounter with a bloodthirsty British newshound.

Loose-tongued Power let slip her true feelings about Hillary Clinton during an interview with the Scotsman newspaper in London, branding the rival candidate a "monster" for her tactics in the Ohio primary campaign. She hastily tried to repair the damage, saying the comment was "off the record," but it was too late. She had been "gotcha-ed" by the British press.

The editor of the Scotsman vigorously defended the paper's decision to publish the remark, saying Power could not simply withdraw a comment made during an on-the-record interview.

"We have no opinion on whether Ms Power was right to quit and perhaps politics should be able to retain people with talent who are prepared to learn by their mistakes but we are certain it was right to publish," Mike Gilson said. "I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on the record quotes after they have been made."

He continued: "The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on the record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp."

Power issued a full mea culpa and did not quibble over the paper's right to publish the quote. But the affair highlights a significant difference in the media cultures of Britain and the United States Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, said that if the sequence of events was as reported, the Scotsman had been "well within their rights" to publish, and expressed a degree of exasperation with the deferential attitude of many in the US media.

One key distinction between British and American reporting is that whereas in the US, off-the-record means exactly that, in Britain, it is generally treated as permission to publish but with only a vague attribution, for example to "a senior campaign source". Even if the conversation is a completely private one, it may still be treated as fair game. But there is no doubt that it is a very grey area with little in the way of clear-cut ethical standards.

Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at London's City University, expressed doubt that the exact sequence of the quote determined whether it was on or off the record. "If I interview someone, and they say, for example, "Tony Blair is a savage - but that's off the record," they are essentially telling me not to print that."

Power may not have been aware of such niceties, though in this case it is not clear it would have saved her anyway.
What might have averted her career-wrecking error was an awareness of the ruthlessness of the British media, some of whom spend their entire lives stalking celebrities and politicians in the simple hope that at some point they will slip up.

While this is not a phenomenon unique to this side of the Atlantic,Britain's cutthroat tabloid culture does perhaps engender a degree of ferocity in the media that outstrips that of the more respectful US press.This is not necessarily always a good thing, of course. In the United States
too there was an increasing tendency to pounce on the gaffe, particularly in a lengthy campaign with plenty of opportunity for slip-ups, Gitlin said. "There are thousands of circling journalists just waiting for the gotcha moment, the gaffe. But pursuit of the gaffe moment does really cheapen journalism, I think."

“Journalists themselves disagree about this but the presumption is that the exemption from attribution is much too commonplace and we should applaud the rejection of it here," he said.

There was in general "too much trickery and obscurantism" in the attribution of quotations, he said.

Comments

[Robbed by a Sub-Prime Minister]

This confirms my belief that some of the British press are very nasty indeed when compared to their foreign counterparts.

[Kiki]

Another win for Hillary! Her 'force' continues to demonstrate the inexperienced nature of the Obama campaign. They are also full of double-speak! Great 'liberals' on the outside, but just like eveyone else on the inside! Obama could do with at least four more years in the Senate to prepare him for the important leadership role in the Senate that he's vying for!

[John]

I think the UK media like most of the time, is tagging on to the Racial aspect of the Presidential Campaign.

Its like the equivalent of a messenger boy during the time of the crusaders. Whereas ALOT of people (customers = money) gather round to here the news.

[Greg LANCE-WATKINS]

Hi,

so Hillary Clinton's team would not only be prepared to destroy the Democrats to gain leadership but are happy to hound out an individual for telling the truth - what a dire plight America is in as Clinton systematically destroys the Democrats to sabotage a better candidate and the best the GOP can come up with is a geriatric New World Order war monger.

How sad as there must be some decent Americans left though one can see why they would not wish to associate with the likes of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheyney Clinton x 2, McCaine, Monica Lewinski and the rest of the odious people attracted to so vial a way to earn a living.

Greg L-W.

[PatrickJ]

Power's talent is too great to be suppressed by a journalist telling half truths; more dangerous than lies.

[day4night]

This sucks! (Democrat yankee here.) Samantha Power is a brilliant, capable and heartful woman. I was hoping she could have a place in Obama's cabinet should he win.

[Daniela]

Ms. Power should not have to quite for speaking the truth, Ms.Clinton comes across as a monster and Ms. Power spoke her mind, is this now forbidden in politics, the French president calls someone an a-hole and can stay ....

[Martin Pilcher]

The attitude and conduct of the press may save us from electing a dictator but unfortunately it seems to have spawned politicians without backbone or stature. I do not know how this will change when politicians respond merely by becoming media savvy.

[Robert]

Another hugely intelligent individual ground up in the meatgrinder of modern politics. What a waste! I agree with her entirely - Hilary Clinton is a monster.

[James Jones]

Where our journalists fail in playing dirty tricks, the 527 groups more than make-up for.

[Norah]

I am very sorry to hear that Samantha lost her temper and as you described her tongue while interviewd, but this leads to the facts that even the most briliant minds can make mistakes, and accordingly learn from their mistakes.

[Joe Chudleigh]

My first response to the above article and generally one that sticks

' the preconceived notion British press has a higher standard then the trash generated by US press just had an epiphany. The idea that the British would rather eat their own excrement then print it a joke and that the lowest common denominator aimed at by the British media is Neanderthal.'

Of course after a few seconds of reasonable thought that idea gave way to something approaching rational. My point, in a world of 45 second sound bites there is no time for for reasoning before the next bite is there and so we develop some very twisted opinions.

[Bob Smith]

Maybe you guys can stay on your side of the pond for this one? Honestly.

[kobrien]

Her gaff was not career-wrecking, since she is not really a campaign advisor, but an academic who acted as foreign policy advisor to the candidate. The editor of the Scotsman sounds like a jerk, but I don't suppose that is career-ending either.

[USPragmatist]

There is a fine line here. Once there is no longer any ability to say something "off the record" or to request that a comment not be printed, then nobody in their right mind will talk to the press any more.

[John D.]

Todd Gitlin is full of shit.

[edGe]

Isn't it a true double standard when an Obama staffer speaks the truth albeit negative about Clinton, they are forced to quit, but when the legion of Clintonistas attack Obama with accusations of drug use, that's jsut hardball poilitics. It is a garbage tactic by people who know garbage!

[Julian Parsons]

What's wrong with calling someone a monster? 'Bitch' & 'nigger' I can understand aren't nice, but when did being monsterphobic become politically incorrect?

[Dave the Fave]

The British Press give itself too much credit for "being bloodthirsty" or "tough on subjects." American reporters would throw their mothers under a bus for what might appear to be a juicy story -- even a non-story like Obama's staffers not liking Hillary. So what? A staffer said something dumb but unexpected. That's news? Go after some real news, then pat yourselves on the back for being tough at your job.

[penny]

I don't see the gray area here. She's a Harvard professor, sophisticated, been interviewed many times. She shoots her mouth off several times then wants at least one comment off the record. SP got carried away because she thinks too highly of her hero. Now she pays the price.

[Bill Keller]

This is an unfortunate event - the ease in which demeaning language has creeped into our speech. We speak without manners, engage without courtesy and form opinions without thought. Even the ivy league is no longer above the gutter in which the swill flows.

Perhaps beneath us all is a vacuum where good character once lived.

We now confuse the tools of chalatans and sideshow barkers with that of statesman and leaders.

[David Gwilliam]

Every country has a job for those people who are thoroughly unscrupulous and yet lack the courage to be gangsters. In America they become lawyers, in Britain they become journalists, in Italy they become accountants and in France they become waiters.

[David McElroy]

As an ex-reporter (and later an editor) at American newsapers, I'd say the issue is pretty simply, from my point of view. NOTHING is "off the record" unless the reporter has agreed to that AHEAD OF TIME. A subject can't just unilaterally declare something off the record and then say it, expecting that it's going to be ignored. In the same way, a subject can't be in the middle of an interview and randomly declare what's on and off the record. That's an insane notion that would give subjects even more power to manipulate the news process.

[bren]

Samantha Powers' intelligent writing has made her one of my heroes so I am sorry that she had to leave Obama's team. However, the publication of the Powers' interview resulted in articles in the American press that made us all understand that the American press is so far from being ferocious, it has been de-fanged.

American journalists stated that they never publish what a politician says without first requesting permission. No wonder the American people are unable to read about what's really going on!

I prefer to be informed, even if it requires that the press be 'ferocious'.

[A Running Commentary]

Different cultures to be sure. What's most unfortunate is that the tired Clinton tactics of the 90's continue to work: apply as much pressure as possible and then pounce when someone slips. The Scotsman reporter acted questionably by American standards, but the real "gotchya" moment was Hillary's speech thereafter pointing out the "gap between what Obama's campaign says and what they actually think."