Comments on: Big Media: Anonymity Good . . . Transparency Bad

By: AGS

AGS — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:02:37 +0000

Why not tape the interview, then play it on the show after the article is published?

By: actus

actus — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:08:40 +0000

“How strange? The MSM doesn’t have the balls to stand up to the scrutiny it demands of those of us who dare question them!”

I don’t think that newspaper reporters usually put their interviewees under constant surveillance. The ones I know discuss with their sources what is and is not to be quoted.

“Acthole’s ”

I’d forgotten I was around grownups.

By: Mescalero

Mescalero — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:37:51 +0000

How strange? The MSM doesn’t have the balls to stand up to the scrutiny it demands of those of us who dare question them!

The only meaningful demonstration of MSM honesty will be the forceful trashing of the Pulitzer award to NYT Stalinist war crimes apologist Walter Duranty and the forceful exit of that unforgiveable Stalinist war crimes apologist Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. Only when the war crimes apologist Sulzberger is flushed down the sewers of Manhattan will we patriots be willing to read the New Jerk Times!

By: Black Jack

Black Jack — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:09:15 +0000

It doesn’t have to be one or the other…

Let’s not confuse an on-air interview with a printed article. One can easily imagine that listening to the interview may tip competitors, but, that’s where the art and professionalism of the reporter comes in. Doing a thoughtful on-air interview would build confidence and mutual respect. Then, private follow ups would be in order once trust and integrity were established. Can’t we all just get along?

By: actus

actus — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:54:50 +0000

“No, but leftists like you would still claim that he wasn’t giving listeners the whole scoop.”

Don’t stop him from whining now, won’t stop him in the future.

“But as Patterico has noted, agreeing to broadcast the interview even a week later - six days after it became old news - would not have this problem.”

Good point. But lots of journalists operate on background with their sources, this guy wants to have nothing on background, including what the journalist says. Why not instead just broadcast his opinions and anyone who wants them can run them?

By: Dwilkers

Dwilkers — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:07:11 +0000

Your post from January linked in this post is a good read Patterico.

I think the competition argument is a fair one. I suspect however that even a tape delay would be unacceptable to them. I think what they’re really interested in is controlling the impression they can give to their readers and not getting caught when they creatively edit.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:32:02 +0000

Acthole's comment about a competitive disadvantage is fair. While all WaPo readers won't listen to the interview live, it's a safe bet that at least one journalist from the NY Times will, as will at least one from the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune, and every other major paper in the nation - thereby ruining whatever advantage the Wapo got by doing a free interview for everyone else to report on. But as Patterico has noted, agreeing to broadcast the interview even a week later - six days after it became old news - would not have this problem.

By: Barbara Hallahan

Barbara Hallahan — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:13:16 +0000

I am sure that ALL the WaPo readers listen to Hugh’s show with bated breath every second that it is on. I bet they commit every word to memory. If that mean old Hugh broadcast the interview live, then poor Amy would have nothing to say that all her readers hadn’t already heard.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:50:49 +0000

Or he could just tell people his side on his radio show. Does he have a credibility problem or something that would make him not believable?

No, but leftists like you would still claim that he wasn’t giving listeners the whole scoop. With a tape, you would have to make the even more ridiculous claim that he had doctored the tape.

By: Shredstar

Shredstar — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:49:45 +0000

Presumably, her story is still a story even without the interview with Hugh Hewitt. It should be interesting to see what this story is once it gets “out there” any day now. Hugh mentions there’s still no story from Amy Goldstein/Washington Post yet. Maybe without Hugh as a source, she’s busy lining up some sources on his staff on double super secret background.

Amy to Hugh’s secret staff member: “Psst, Has Hugh ever mentioned if he’s seen Roberts put on boxers or briefs in the locker room?”