Why else would they lead information about off the record comments Trump made to the Times in a January interview?
I have to agree with Morning Joe today: it's hard to see the Times do this to Marco Rubio, or even Ted Cruz.
But what is the justification for betraying a promise of confidentiality?
I even sort of agree with Glenn Greenwald.
"Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, journalists shouldn’t be promising people to keep their discussions off-the-record only to then violate that vow through gossip or deliberate disclosures. Doing so is wildly unethical, and is guaranteed to destroy the trust between sources and journalists that is vital to good reporting. That’s true no matter who is the subject of the agreement: even Donald Trump."
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/the-new-york-times-strange-behavior-in-the-controversy-over-trumps-off-the-record-comments/
To be sure, Greenwald doesn't like off the record comments. I think there is a place for them in journalism.
"Rather than candidly disclose Trump’s off-the-record comments and then expressly justify why they’ve done so, the NYT is instead causing those comments to leak through some combination of negligence and subterfuge. That’s actually worse than doing it the direct, honest way. They’ve now put the person to whom they promised confidentiality in the position of having either to demand that they disclose what was discussed off-the-record, or have the public assume that it was something bad and shameful. None of this should have been off-the-record in the first place, but once the NYT made the bad decision to make that promise, they’re bound to honor their own commitment."
To be sure, this will only help Trump again by putting him up against the 'liberal NY Times.'
Not sure what the Times is trying to do here but whatever it is it will backfire.
I have to agree with Morning Joe today: it's hard to see the Times do this to Marco Rubio, or even Ted Cruz.
But what is the justification for betraying a promise of confidentiality?
I even sort of agree with Glenn Greenwald.
"Regardless of what one thinks of Trump, journalists shouldn’t be promising people to keep their discussions off-the-record only to then violate that vow through gossip or deliberate disclosures. Doing so is wildly unethical, and is guaranteed to destroy the trust between sources and journalists that is vital to good reporting. That’s true no matter who is the subject of the agreement: even Donald Trump."
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/the-new-york-times-strange-behavior-in-the-controversy-over-trumps-off-the-record-comments/
To be sure, Greenwald doesn't like off the record comments. I think there is a place for them in journalism.
"Rather than candidly disclose Trump’s off-the-record comments and then expressly justify why they’ve done so, the NYT is instead causing those comments to leak through some combination of negligence and subterfuge. That’s actually worse than doing it the direct, honest way. They’ve now put the person to whom they promised confidentiality in the position of having either to demand that they disclose what was discussed off-the-record, or have the public assume that it was something bad and shameful. None of this should have been off-the-record in the first place, but once the NYT made the bad decision to make that promise, they’re bound to honor their own commitment."
To be sure, this will only help Trump again by putting him up against the 'liberal NY Times.'
Not sure what the Times is trying to do here but whatever it is it will backfire.
Trump for his part is responding that 'everything is negotiable.'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/29/trump-on-nyt-interview-leak-everythings-negotiable/
Exactly, it's only going to help Trump. So it's a good thing. Is Mark Levin or Erick Erickson going to argue... "but the NY Times said"... is Ted Cruz going to hold up a NY Times at a rally?
ReplyDeleteThe few mongoloids who've managed to even hear about the existence of the NY Times in his crowd know it only because "I heard Rush said it sucks!"