Commentary
Shouldn't we be a little concerned about how Romney's comments came to light?
by Eric Ringham, Minnesota Public RadioFour years ago it was another presidential fundraiser and another secret recording. Candidate Barack Obama thought he was speaking privately to a group of Democratic funders at a function that was closed to the press. And he was. But one of those funders was a double.
Her name was Mayhill Fowler, and although she had given thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, she was also a citizen blogger working for the Huffington Post. When she heard Obama say that people under stress tended to cling to their religion and their guns, she had a big story. Soon, Obama's comments at a private fundraiser in San Francisco were being flashed around the world.
His words became a story because Fowler was able to enter that room as a funder but leave it as a journalist. The distinction troubled a few people at the time, but not many and not for long. Obama's campaign didn't try to deny what he'd said or raise a stink about the state of journalistic ethics at the Huffington Post. So the coverage focused on Obama's comments and not on how the media got their hands on them.
Today's story is similar. The candidate is Mitt Romney instead of Obama, the funders are Republicans instead of Democrats, the media organization is Mother Jones instead of the Huffington Post. And instead of Mayhill Fowler, we have ... who? Mother Jones won't say who leaked the video, but it appears to have been shot by someone who needed to keep his head down and couldn't afford to be picky about camera angles. And as Obama did four years ago, Romney is accepting responsibility for his comments.
But what about the rest of us? Are we willing to accept the responsibility for what we're helping to create?
We love stories like these. As consumers, we love to read and listen to them. As journalists, we love to cover the controversies that result from them. Will this be the gaffe that decides the election? Details at 10.
If anybody is troubled by the feeling that they're eavesdropping on what was supposed to be a private meeting, media observers are quick to point out that there is no such thing as a private meeting anymore. Not during a national campaign. The candidates should know better.
And sure, they probably should know better. Saying that, though, lets journalists off the hook. Are we really willing to misrepresent ourselves to get a story? Do we have no problem at all with bugging a meeting room? And if we're willing to do that, what's to stop us from hacking into somebody's phone?
After Obama was elected, I met the editor who worked with Mayhill Fowler on the God-and-guns story. He spoke proudly and colorfully about the role he'd played — not only in breaking a huge story, but in helping tear down the wall between citizen journalism and regular journalism. I could quote him here, but he wasn't speaking for publication. I'd be taking him out of context. It wouldn't be right.
Comments (14)
Is there any doubt that a Romney administration would favor the rich and increase the income gap in our country? Mitt is a pariah in Mormon Clothing and will stop at nothing to expand an empire of greed for the rich in this country by expanding tax cuts for the 1% of the wealthiest Americans. He's out to gut the Middle Class for every red cent he can get. Will his sacred Mormon underwear grant him the protection and money to buy this election? See for yourself as Mitt dons his tighty-whities sent down from the Good Lord Himself at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html
Mitt said what many people have been thinking. 47% of people pay no federal tax, yet the remaining 53% are asked to continue to pay more. The top 1% and 5% in the US pay more total tax as a percentage than any developed country. Yet they are not paying their fair share?? Obama needs to stop dividing the country. So much for the audacity of hope. Let's do some tax reform and cut spending so we can ensure our children a chance at the prosperity we had.
Yes, we should be concerned about how the Romney comments surfaced. (Even though he was stupid, in the digital age, to have said something that his campaign wouldn't be comfortable appearing on YouTube.) In my case, the Obama Campaign people whom I knew in California were happy that I would be reporting about the event. I had reported on Obama fundraisers previously. How could any of us have known that he would say something so different from what he had been saying on the campaign trail days before, in PA, where I had been reporting? As for Marc Cooper, he is often in my thoughts and prayers, although he and my other "boss" Amanda Michel defriended me on Facebook after the election. I cried over that for months, a humiliating admission for a 60-something (doing here only because Minnesotans were so friendly and helpful during the 2008 Republican Convention). I am 66 now--what's the point other than the truth?
If this is another example of "citizen journalism," then one of the big problems is we have no clue who the citizen or the journalist is. We only know who the distributor is. Is that a problem?
In today's 24/7 wired world, anyone running for elected office should simply operate on the assumption that anything you say anywhere can--and will--be used against you in the Court of Public Opinion.
One would think the folks that run these campaigns would have figured this out by now.
So, this video was made in May, but they just sat on it for 5 months, waiting for an opportune time to use it.
Like now, when Obama has proven himself to be a complete failure during an International Crisis.
Nice diversion. Working pretty good. Perhaps no one will notice that Nero Bama is fiddling while our Embassies burn.
But, the fact remains, the worst thing that could happen to the Democrats is the re-election of the incompetent Obama.
"So, this video was made in May, but they just sat on it for 5 months, waiting for an opportune time to use it". - Thats politics baby.
Romney continues to say he was speaking off the cuff, except he was speaking to a group of supporters, all of which ponied up 50k to hear him. Was he so unprepared that he was just winging it for the event, or was he just pandering, or is he just unpresiedential. I vote for the latter. This was not a gotcha moment, this was the candidate, spoiled and privileged, who pays 13% income tax (wouldn't that be nice) extolling the virtues of his wealth, and the failed lessons of Ayn Rand.
Perhaps there's been a rise in citizen journalists in part because we feel the major media outlets have been doing less and less real reporting.
Most newspapers and TV networks have been cutting staff, closing bureaus, and relying more and more on process stories, insider "Village" political gossip, and horse-race coverage.
This is wildly unsatisfying to people who want to make informed decisions about our highest office. Stenography and pool reports from the back of campaign planes has given us very little insight into what's behind the spin and, too often, lies in this campaign.
Soledad O'Brien stands out as one of the few journalists today who actually takes on and challenges the lies.
But until the press is less supine in the face of what Jay Rosen of NYU rather pointedly has called the biggest challenge to the importance of traditional media this year - lies and the failure to uncover/challenge them - we voters will be forced to rely on citizens willing to report where journalists fear to go.
No, we don't need to be particularly concerned about how this video surfaced. Voters have a right to know when a candidate tells his/her donors something different than what (s)he tells potential voters. That was true with BHO's comments in 2008 & is true for WMR's comments now.
Actually, the person who shot the footage did not just "sit on it" for 5 months. They put it out on the internet and it got picked up by bloggers here and there, but it wasn't until they released the full video in its entirety a few days ago that it was picked up by the mainstream media. Here the NYT traces its history: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/timescast-politics-fallout-over-romney-video/
It confirms the lessons of Ayn Rand.
The main one being: Statism is evil. Don't become a Statist. Don't run for office. Don't vote, it only encourages them to think their lies are fooling you.
Be above digging in such dirt.
I have zero issue with comments made at a campaign fundraiser being made public. Either political transparency is good, or it isn't. We shouldn't allow a two-tiered system where an elite few are given special, priveledged information from candidates, based solely on their ability to pay. To the extent that these stories force candidates to tell their patrons the same thing they tell the rest of us, more to the good.
I find all A-OK with reporting what happens in a large meeting of any candidate's donors. You have to assume that the donors are going to be talking about what the candidate said. That makes it fair for reporting--if reporters can learn what was said.
Personally, I like to know what a candidate is saying to the people who are buying him.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Eric Ringham
• Commentary Editor, NewsEric Ringham is commentary editor for Minnesota Public Radio News, where he also edits the "Today's Question" feature.
