Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 8th September 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scotsman editor: 'We are certain it was right to publish'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

SOME commentators last night criticised The Scotsman for running quotes that Ms Power tried to retract.
She made no attempt to claim that the newspaper had breached "off the record" protocols, but political bloggers in the US took issue.

But the newspaper insisted it had acted correctly.

An off-the-record quote can be used to inform a journalist,
to give useful background. Before the interview began in London, Ms Power was asked whether it could be taped. She agreed.

However, she tried to withdraw the comment on Hillary Clinton after she said it, claiming it was "off the record".

Mike Gilson, The Scotsman's editor, said: "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.

"I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on-the-record quotes after they have been made. 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."





The full article contains 259 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 March 2008 10:10 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: US elections
 
1

Angus Ogg,

08/03/2008 00:09:57
Scotsman Editor, Mike Gilson you gave an interview, and said you would "listen more".

Well I am one of your readers, one of your paying readers, and I am disgusted that you stand by Gerri Peev who clearly broke the "Off The Record" protocol and that you are failing to listen to your readers. The fact that in every follow up article either you or Peev "Protesteth Too Much" about the "Off The Record" breach speaks volumes.

I understand you are Editor number 7 of The Scotsman over 10 years, and that the circulation during this period has halved.

My question is when are you going to start listening?

In the morning, I am off to buy a Herald. You lost me Now your circulation is 53,519.
2

,

08/03/2008 00:15:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

SilverShred,

in the jamjar 08/03/2008 00:27:01
Well done, Scotsman.

What a scoop....

4

I eat cookies wrapped in scotch tape,

Off The Record 08/03/2008 00:31:58
If Rab McN cares to call me:

"The stories I could tell about visitors to John Smith's Cluny home after his death! In those days they walked or took the bus."
5

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 08/03/2008 00:41:15
Well done, Scotsman and Gerri Peev.

If Samantha Powers is a person of the significance that many of her defenders are saying, then I want to know that she thinks a US presidential candidate is a monster.
6

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/03/2008 00:49:31
#1 You are quite wrong. The journalist broke no protocol. Read the article again, it is explained quite clearly.
7

steve's here,

08/03/2008 00:53:43
ooooooohhh, a monster...president Next is going to need a thicker hide than a monster comment can penetrate. The big story is that the Scotsman was noticed in the US.
8

Angus Ogg,

08/03/2008 00:58:16
#6 Hello Duncan,

I just re-read the article as you suggested. Mr Gilson expressed his opinion. The extraordinary fact is that a newspaper editor has to place such an article in his paper just emphasises the point that there is a significant issue concerning placing on-record commentd that are explicitly quoted by the interviewee as off-record.

Duncan you and I will have to agree to differ on this one.

Though I bet you this: Gerri Peev will find it very difficult to access anyone of note for an interview for a longtime.
9

Dorritt,

USA 08/03/2008 01:00:35
I am deeply troubled that two governments have interfered in our politics. This sort of reporting belongs in the National Enquirer where the standards are quite low. Off the record means just that, no justification. How does one do investigative journalism in your country? Do you squeal on the person(s) who gives information in confidence?

Miss Powers should not have called her a monster, instead she should have said .....Viper.
10

,

08/03/2008 01:17:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

,

08/03/2008 01:21:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Guga II,

Rockall 08/03/2008 01:59:45
Obviously people will be a lot more circumspect when dealing with the Hootsmon in future; and their so-called journalists will obtain a lot less information.

Apart from that, why did the woman resign? All she said was that she thought Hillary Clinton was a monster. Sounds like fair comment to me.
13

StopTheNumpties,

everywhere 08/03/2008 02:01:57
Stop hyperventilating. Ms. Power was not at her first interview with a reporter. The rules say if you want something off the record, you get that agreement first or keep your trap shut. SHE DID NOT. No one is entitled to blurt something out and then later decide it makes them look bad, so they have some God-given right to insist the reporter put the feathers back in the pillow case. Had she gotten the agreement ahead of time, it would be a different matter. Having worked as a journalist I would rarely agree to off the record remarks. Too often, the subject was simply trying to tie my hands in case I heard it from somewhere else. Ms. Power wasn't talking to the Scotsman for her health - she was working for Mr. Obama. And she made a muck of it. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, it's one more indication he probably isn't ready yet for the Big Top!
14

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 08/03/2008 02:19:34
Never mind this lassie having to resign. Its American News, and its their business. They are in the same position as the UK. They voted for a war monger, like bush and they got him. The UK voted for Blair and Brown who are war mongers.

On top of their treachery by lies to the People of the World, has given us bankrupt Economies in both areas. The UK Government Debt is now at 576 billion quid, and in fact is running at a loss every year. Thats with Scotlands Oil income, while Scotland could pay its share of the UK debt and all the other shares in debt, War in Iraq and Afghanistan, surveillance of its people, spy network all over the world, embassies etc etc. After all of this they would still show a profit of 610 million and that doesnt include the pocketmoney we get by our masters.

Why would Scotlands People want to be part of a dying UK, which is bankrupt and does not earn enough to pay its existing or future debts. A budget deficit for the last 27 years.
15

The Daleks,

Longmen 08/03/2008 02:35:24
The real reason the Scotsman is making a big issue out of this story is to make itself look grand and important.

"Oooh!! Look what we did!!"

It's actually all quite pathetic really.

What were those circulation figures again?
16

,

08/03/2008 03:47:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Byron Trent,

Albuquerque NM, USA 08/03/2008 04:32:36
What a lame comment by the editor! Remind me
never to give an interview to this rag - or of course
to read it. Scotland - please stay out of our politics!
I hope right thinking citizens of Scotland will
agree and spurn this new example of media as Big
Brother. Shame on you, Scotsman.
18

Watson,

Irvine 08/03/2008 05:19:58
No wonder this rag just sits on the newspaper stand.
19

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........captured from Mexico 1845 08/03/2008 05:59:42

#1, #8 Angus Ogg,

Dude U are dead wrong .

S. Power was asked before the interview, would she agree to the interview being recorded (taped) and she said YES.

She knew it would published, that's what news papers do ...dude.

There is no blame here Dude. Just a very intelligent woman S Power shooting her mouth off when she should have known better. TOUGH.

GC
20

Colorado Erskine,

Erskine Colorado 08/03/2008 06:22:32
The reporter was doing her job. Is she suppose to ignore a blatant statement made during an interview? Ms. Powers was a Professor at Harvard not a novice Obama volunteer. She knew full well what she was saying. She brought all this on by her catty comments. Ms. Powers should be smart enough to know the difference between "off the record" and "off the cuff". I bet she does now.
21

rossdohan,

france 08/03/2008 06:25:03
There seem to be quite a number of "experts" who agree to condemn Miss Powers. Having a degree in Communications and having taught "Objectivety in the News" (course title) for some years I suppose I could also consider myself an expert. However I think what is needed here is not "specialist opinion" but common sense. Miss Powers was speaking freely to The Scotsman's reporter. She used a metaphorical term to describe a woman whose past should preclude her from any political office and realising it was not politically correct, asked for it not to be used. Her mistake was misjudging the interviewer's capacity for trust and decency.
22

beadfulheart,

Lake Charles, LA 08/03/2008 06:32:49
Ms Powers made no 'off the record' exception until *after* she spewed a few words too many. SHE is the one accountable for not filtering herself.

Ms. Peev did her job which is more than we can say about our own American media.

Insulting, biased, angry commentators like Tucker Carlson are not journalists and have no business judging those that are. His insults aimed at 'British journalistic ethics' are hypocritical at the very least.
23

PaulW,

Borders 08/03/2008 07:49:12
#1 Angus,

Welcome to the mass of those of us former Scotsman buyers who are waiting for the paper to rediscover a decent editorial line (neutral not rabidly anti-SNP) and I agree with you that the editor can dress this up as much as he likes, but there is something distinctly unethical about how they treated Ms Power - the establishment attacking someone representing a force for change in the US. I may have some reservations about Obama, but they pale into insignificance when you see the nasty tactics being used by Ms Clinton's team - her ads in Texas should be the real news story, showing the Clintons will do anything to get elected. A bit like Labour here before the May 2007 elections, supported by the Scotsman. Hopefully the mendacity and synicism of the Clinton approach will be similarly rewarded.

Just another reason why I will not be buying the paper in hard copy this morning and why I too will be buying the Herald. SoS is also out of favour with me at the moment, and I am buying the Sunday Herald. Hopefully one day the Scotsman and SoS will become a Scottish paper, not one promoting an outside agenda aka the North Briton. Maybe one day I will be able to buy it again.

Each time I check the website out, that becomes less likely......are the owners getting the message yet? Hardly.
24

Pocket Dictionary,

08/03/2008 08:21:40
Just as well Deep Throat never went to the Hootsman! His name would have been splashed all over the paper after the first interview.
25

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 08/03/2008 08:34:06
Congratulations to THE SCOTSMAN. You have are now famous on both sides of the Atlantic for your lack of proper Journalistic standards and ethics. You have certainly exceeded everyones expectations. Most people had written you off as a hopeless wee rag that specialized in politically biased reporting for the Labour Party. No we see that your willing to carry out political assasinations overseas. Now along with whiskey and shortbread, Scotland will also be famous for its exports of yellow journalism.
26

Bruce's spider,

08/03/2008 08:50:06
The depths that The Scotsman now plumbs are truly astonishing. A once great paper now has standards akin to those of the red banners..................how sad.
27

Monster Mouth,

Seattle 08/03/2008 08:56:01
Samantha Power's comment looks like it stems from a psychological tool used a lot in wartime: dehumanize the enemy. But neither of the Democratic campaigns has swiftboated the other yet, so I wonder why someone in Obama's camp is demonstrating this kind of venom? If it's Power's personal attitude, and she said this in an interview where she was representing Obama (in spite of any "takebacks" she attempted), she displayed poor judgment (and not for the first time), and her retiring from the campaign is probably good for Obama. If her statement reflects Obama's campaign's attitude, I think they all need to re-examine their mindset. Who's the real enemy here? Hillary, whose stated political goals are frequently indistinguishable from Obama's? Or the war-mongering Republicans who can imagine America staying in Iraq for another 100 years, with Halliburton and thousands of mercenaries representing Democracy for us?
28

Whyisthat,

damascus 08/03/2008 09:50:37
FIRST - Its my pleasure to read Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize winner book; Samantha had accomplished her own task for which she was physicaly present in the UK to begin with. The bombardment of UN headquarter in Baghdad soon after changing the Iraqi regim is a curious subject for sure! Why it happened; and to who's benfit?
Second – 3 years "unpaid" advisor serving Obama, cannot continue forever – Its not a charity! Though Obama; later on; accumulated a surplus of fund for his campaign! I don't blame her she resorted to her own resources, her own Pulitzer Prize winner book! She a great independent thinker!
Third – She has to be ostracized from the political scene and preferably from the journalistic arena too before she gets bigger:
A. On the Democratic party side:
- In the midst of the recent Gaza siege events Obama thought that Israel's security is sanctimonious yet failed to mention a thing about the dehumanized people on the other side! A WAR CRIME EXPERT MIGHT advise different view on this!
- Mrs Clinton who boasted herself as being "experienced" and ready as a commander in chief - Had missed a great experience as the war started in the Balkan. She similtaniously started a vacation with her daughter in the midlle of no-where; in the Moroccan part of the Sahara desert, which is seeking indepence!
And where is the experience in kissing the cheeks of Yaser Arafat's wife and chatting with her in Gaza and not mentioning a thing about the life of ENTIRE NATION under PERPETUAL SIEGE! Despite the daily reminders of news events! A WAR CRIME EXPERT MIGHT advise a different view on this too!
B. On the Republican party side:
A WAR CRIME EXPERT MIGHT might not remain scilent when discovering that McCain's father "One Navy Admirl" was involved in a coverup related to USS Liberty which has its own DOTorg site!
29

glassbenmhor,

08/03/2008 10:52:50
53,519 THE MAGIC NUMBER EH

Well this article dose not surprise ,the Scotsman is the establishment however socialist they think Labour still are,so this was all in the run of things, Hillary establishment, Obama-not,53,519 well,well,not very good,wonder what the Herald figures are,Oh well this is what happens when a newspaper departs from the truthful take on the last 24hrs and reverts to historyonics
30

ushekim,

Washington, D.C. 08/03/2008 10:55:45
But she did specify the "monster" quote is off the record. What is it that you don't understand?
31

Oor_Wullie,

ma_bucket 08/03/2008 10:55:45
"Scotsman Journalist interviews Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author.."

- and, in Next Weeks series of Unlikely Encounters, a chimpanzee discusses Evolution with Steven Hawking. As the comments section of this rag now appear to be overflowing with Clinton v. Obama Yanks complete with the unfortunate habit of calling the natives "Limeys", one hopes (but doubts) that normal Hootsmon frontpage service may be resumed shortly, with a good old Celtic/Rangers punch-up, or the return of Mr Salmonds dietary advise column. AND COMMENTS, of course - cannae think theyve suddenly been removed from the main article today, discussion was positively civil compared to the fitba threads, maybe some people have a hard time accepting critiscism? Aw, diddums..

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out the following to Mike "2wiseMonkeys" Gilson, assuming he has the time in-between producing yet more of his drivelling self-justifying "leaders", as exampled above, to take note. The main issue here is not one of "off the record" semantics, but entirely that of the Hootsmons shabby and unforgivable behaviour in taking one single and obvious (even to you lot) off-the-cuff comment and inflating that to Frontpage Headline Status, thereby forming the entire basis and sole substance of one of the most pathetic non-news stories it has ever been my misfortune to witness. You, your paper and your reporter have sold Ms Power down the river and that fact will remain, a long time after the Yanks have gone home again.
32

Gothic Rose,

08/03/2008 11:05:19
Scotsman by removing the posts of first feature headed Obama, and retaining this and following,not only are you spoilsports, you also have just shot yourself in the foot.
33

Gothic Rose,

08/03/2008 11:08:41
P.S. Should read previous, Not following.On the other hand,could all change in a mo.
34

Angus Ogg,

Campbeltown 08/03/2008 11:44:15
#31

I think the actual circulation figure was around 47,000 when the Audited Bureau of Circulation people took off all the freebie issues and giveaways that go out. But when I went back to check the other Scotsman Board on Ms Powers resigning, the newspaper had censored it, and taken the entire Comment Board down.

What I am really uunhappy with, is The Scotsman is a paper I have read and enjoyed for 30 years. With all due respect to Mike Gilson the current editor, and he is the seventh in 10 years, I would like him to take more care of my paper. Well I say "my" paper, I am only a reader. I suspect at this very moment, Mr Gilsons direct boss over at Johnson Press is checking out Mr Gilson's contract to see if it is time to look for editor number 8.

Well editor number 8, or Mr Gilson, or whoever is in charge next week, if you would get back to reporting stories which you used to be very good at, then it might stop the accelerated terminal decline, and decline is a factual word. I well remember reading in my Scotsman paper in the year 2002 that you were aiming to get back up to a "realistic" circulation of 80,000 if not the heady 100,000 that was achieved in the year 2000.

Please can you answer, at what point of circulation decline does it get serious for our beloved Scotsman newspaper?

47,000 ?

40,000 ?

30,000 ?

15,000 ?

25 ?
35

Colin in Texas,

Austin, Tx 08/03/2008 11:47:37
I'm sure you were correct to publish Samantha Power's comments - this must be so because you "The editor" sat it is so - of course you would have to resign if you were wrong and that is clearly not going to happen.

All you have done here is help Hillary Clinton's campaign and thus ensure President McCain will continue the farce in Iraq.

As a Scotsman living in Texas it is a sad day when "The Scottish Newspaper" shows its true colours
36

puskas,

East kilbride 08/03/2008 11:59:00
What did this rag not publish about the corrupt NuLiebour party and their cohorts....

Oblivion is what is coming for this newspaper that I many years ago admired..

I'm sure the editor and his team when they look back from the dole might just have the intelligence to think was lies worth it...

In the next world they'll meet up with Bliar and co. but not in paradise but hell.

Hopefully Hawkins finds many a black hole as there are many unscrupulous politicians and hacks to find room for..

Has the other topic been closed folks ????
37

Why Are 400,000 Leaving The UK Each Year ?,

08/03/2008 11:59:49
#38,

I don't think Mr Gilson will need to tender his resignation. For enlightenment of those in America, we have a thing called a "P45" which an employer gives to an employee who fails in his or her job.

The Scotsman circulation figures that appeared on the other Forum Board that the editor censored and removed were....

The Scotsman Circulation...

2000 100,000 +
2001 79,000
2002 82,270
2003 72,200
2004 69,600
2005 65,392
2006 57,866
2007 55,175
2008 53,520

(2008 = 47,771 when the freebies and giveaway copies are deducted from the audited total).

At least Ms Powers had the integrity to resign by herself. I think that as a Scotsman living in Texas, you are about to witness a cold, harsh fact of circulation decline. That is the exit of MrGilson, indirectly because of Ms Peev's dishonourable conduct, but more directly becasue Mr Gilson cannot stop the rapid circulation decline of my favourite newspaper, so he is likely to receive his P45 shortly.
38

,

08/03/2008 12:00:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

YHOTA,

Newbridge 08/03/2008 12:11:21
Circulation? The Scotsman seems to have a regular army of loonies busting to read what they are saying and then firing off scores of posts on these message boards at all hours of the day and night?
40

Queen D,

Glasgow 08/03/2008 12:11:43
I don't think any newspaper should interfere in any election ,ever!
We witnessed gross interference from all Scottish newspapers prior to May elections hear.
Lies and damned lies at that.
We should be very careful in commenting on elections in other countries , we have NO business doing so.
What this paper has done is to deprive Obama of an intelligent aide , though she should have known better than to trust a journalist, any journalist.

There is no coverage of the by election debacle in Cambuslang. If you wish to read about it I suggest the Herald.
It would appear that the computer counting system has failed , yet again.
I like the human touch when counting votes and I don't care if we have to wait a few days for results as long as they are accurate.
41

M.T.,

08/03/2008 12:14:52
My son was asked to give an interview for a local magazine. The editor e.mailed a draft copy for his perusal. He agreed with the draft copy but asked if some words could be added. They were and the interview was published. He has trust and respect for the editor and would no hesitation in giving another interview to the same magazine if requested.
42

yockel,

08/03/2008 12:33:36
#41 Interesting link, I see the Hootsom could put the graph on the home page if they wanted.
I cancelled my subscription to the Hootsmon a few years back, the paper had gone all "up to date" at the time. In other words entertainment and waffle supplanted news. Hopefully someone who can do something about it reads these threads.
43

JFaeLeith,

Edinburgh 08/03/2008 12:47:24
Samantha Power made a foolish mistake: she should have remembered the golden rule "Never trust a reporter!"

But in my opinion, the Scotsman made a worse mistake, with longer-lasting repercussions. Yes, publishing this non-story - this tabloid "gotcha" - got a headline and a bit of attention from the US.

But I - a local Edinburgh reader - now have a pretty good idea of what standards the Scotsman has fallen to, if the political editor's best notion of a "story" is that an Obama campaign worker got a bit forthright about what she thinks of Hillary Clinton: and decided to run with that even though the campaign worker realised she'd mis-spoken and corrected her mistake almost as soon as she'd said it. Your "political correspondent Gerri Peev" is a tabloid hack, who will find it more difficult in future to get unbuttoned interviews with politicians and political workers.
44

,

08/03/2008 12:52:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

G Sames,

San Diego CA 08/03/2008 13:19:20
Your attempts to justify the publishing of the comments made by Ms. Powers further contributes to the disdain, that many have for the press, particularly the British Press. I watched Ms. Peev appearance on MSNBC and she appeared befuddled and confused by the outcry. Obviously an issue of fairness would escape her despite what the agreed upon ground rules may have been.People are known to miss speak and her offering that that Ms Power's will be "rehabilitated" was lame at best.Perhaps some rehabilitation of your jounalistic practices is needed as well.i find it intersting and amusing that you have suspended comments on this subject on your website as a result of abuse,but find no abuse in publishing a comment that was intended for publication. Isn't that a bit ironic?
46

Listen,

08/03/2008 13:24:20
If you were right, then we are all wrong.
47

Deez Nuts,

USA 08/03/2008 14:33:29
How silly of The Scotsman (and the commenters here)to say that they "followed the rules" even though Ms. Powers clearly did not *intend* to say, on the record, as a member of the Obama team, that Ms. Clinton was a "monster".

This is the kind thing tabloids do, not serious papers. I guess I know which one The Scotsman is.
48

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........Hillary for Pres....Barack Hus 08/03/2008 14:46:37

Deez Nuts,
USA

Hey dude,


Deez Nuts were made for walking . They will walk allover U.

GC
49

will T,

wnnetka, IL 08/03/2008 15:53:55
This always amazes me when you get an Ivy league educated person who has no common sense at all. You would think she has half a brain to realize the comments were not going to be off the record unless the scotsman also agreed to off the record.

one year ago I would have thought that the Republicans had a 1 per cent chance at the white house but once again the democrats look loke they will nominate a far far left who might lose in the general election
50

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/03/2008 16:03:43
This "monster" scoop has been broadcast coast to coast in the US where the puzzled Yanks are asking more and more about The Scotsman Who?
51

will T,

winnetka IL 08/03/2008 16:06:23
Mr. Todd

Those of us yanks who are golfers all know who the Scotsman is. Why would i ever read a us paper for golf coverage of the Majors when ther eis the Scotsman.

Cant wait to get back to Scotland to take my son golfing.

Will
52

SJC,

Texas 08/03/2008 16:31:13
WELL DONE SCOTSMAN!!! For all these whiners who feel exposed... Please remind them what a newspaper is supposed to do... Report UNBIASED, UNFILTERED, UNALTERED... Then the reader can make their own judgement. Thank you Scotsman for NOT being like the trash, judgemental, BIASED media of USA! And for all the Obama whiners, 'if ye can't take the heat; get out of the kitchen!'
53

Banigan,

North Westminster 08/03/2008 17:24:25
The real monster is Obama.
54

Queen D,

Glagsow 08/03/2008 17:57:51
There are some very p*ssed off Americans on the other thread!
55

San Francisco Rose,

San Francisco 08/03/2008 18:20:53
Of course Scotsman is unaware of single case where a wish to have something taken off the record was accomodated... because they permitted it is WHY you don't know of any case. DUH!
And we're not "politically bloggers" we're normal people who reject your denial and self-inflating journalistic flatulence. You talk about learning from her mistake when you can't even stop perpetrating your own. What a sham position, Scotsman, you really need a reality check. Letting Peev continue to cover the story reveals her true hunger for fame, and your credentials from the Rupert Murdoch School of Bottomfeeding Denial.
56

San Francisco Rose,

San Francisco 08/03/2008 18:28:51
Here's a thought, let Peev interview the Scotsman editor on journalistic conventions of the British Press so we all can have our eyes opened. After that, Peev can follow up with an in-depth scoop on her own inner thoughts and what she'd have done if she's not buggered her own career and professional future. If she can pedal a bike as well as her story, maybe she'll end up with a paper route, but it will have to be one still in business.
57

Vandala,

08/03/2008 19:38:31
Shockingly unprofessional conduct on behalf of the Scotsman and a glib, unqualified response to accusations of a breach of protocol. Interviewees, particularly those who work in politics, make "off the record" comments everyday and are understood as such. Trying to justify the action by stating that the interview was taped is no justification whatsoever. How one can possibly suggest that the comment was asked to be withdrawn afterwards when the "off the record" statement was within hyphens is beyond me.

Here is the quote:

We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

How does that constitute what is now being claimed:

However, she tried to withdraw the comment on Hillary Clinton after she said it, claiming it was "off the record".
58

Seannair,

08/03/2008 19:59:18
I went "off The Record" years ago and more recently I went off The Scotsman too!
59

adsullata,

pdx 08/03/2008 20:35:22
It has become a well-known fact that no matter what side of the world you are on journalism has lost it’s integrity.

We keep buying, watching and reading, therefore we keep encouraging this bad behavior. Until people of quality take over the running of the news services the people wanting quantity will have their say in the continuing disintegration of journalistic standards world wide.

As for Hillary the best thing she could have done is said, “When I am president people will have worse things to say about me. Let them talk. I have thick skin and I have a job to do. Appeasing one disgruntled person is not as important to me as the running of this country.”

Now she looks like a Jr. Higher who got put off by the cool kids. You want to be president Hil. It is still a man’s world out there so you better grow some balls.
60

amazed on the other side of the pond,

Or, US 08/03/2008 22:00:00
I cannot believe the blame that is being placed with Ms Peev for Ms Powers very unfortuneate remarks. I am positive that she would know what the score is when it comes to interviews, not to mention exercising more restraint under the circumstances. It is amazing how many people on this blog and others are either blaming Ms Peev or even Senator Clinton for her resignation.

I saw Ms Peev on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson, both with MSNBC, yesterday. Chris Matthews tried to take her to task when he, himself is increasingly out of control. He has so much sympathy for Ms Power but one only has to watch his show to see how unfair HE can be. Next, I saw Ms Peev being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, who was worse than Chris Matthews. He basically insulted the media in the UK as having lower standards. WOW.....they both need to check themselves....completely amazing. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was Senator Obama being called a monster, both, especially Chris Matthews would so very indignant and frothing at the mouth. The level of glee he would exhibit if the situation was flipped would be enormous.

No bias or unfair reporting over here...nope...none at all!!
61

Nellie,

Liverpool 08/03/2008 22:52:44
Perhaps th protocol was not broken if you interpret it to the latter, but the spirit of the code has been totally smashed. If I were a politician I'd not give the Scotsman any interviews after this incident, off or on record.
62

Phillip,

08/03/2008 23:36:04
Things must be better in the UK than here in the US. Off the Record pretty much no longer exists in the US press. Anything you say can and will be used against you if it will sell copies.
63

Beth Boyle,

NY 09/03/2008 02:40:20
Ms. Power knew she was being taped so it's fair to print. She obviously made a grave error but that is not the fault of The Scotsman. No one involved with a presidential campaign should be so naive and foolish she should quit if she cannot control her emotions during an interview with a newspaper.
64

BDA,

USA 09/03/2008 08:44:44
No - it was NOT right to print these remarks. Under a fair press supported by free speech you can't have it both ways. You can't say, on one hand, that you refuse to print sources of information that fall under protections; and then, hypocritically, print information given to you by sources that say "off the record." To do so is hypocritical. To furthermore pander such information/remarks makes this "newspaper" little more than a gossip column - not to be attributed any credence by intelligent beings.
65

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/03/2008 09:27:00
By printing what it did, the Scotsman tarnished its reputation in many people's eyes. And all for a small amount of short-term "glory". I would never buy this rag. The Sunday Herald for me every time.
66

hassan i sabbah,

edinburgh 09/03/2008 13:18:45
“That’s the one thing that terrifies me,” Ms. Power says. “That I’ll say something that will somehow hurt the candidate.” She says that in public lectures and interviews, she sometimes fights the urge to make unkind statements about other candidates. “That’s just not Obama’s style,” she says. “Left to my own devices, I’d articulate my frustrations in a much harsher way.”
THE LURE OF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
Scholars Who Counsel Candidates Wield Power but Face Risk
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i07/07a00101.htm
67

Be Rational,

USA 09/03/2008 18:28:47
I think the issue here is not whether this paper upheld its journalistic standards, but what those standards are. There is absolutely no reason why this comment was printed. Ms. Power clearly said immediately after making the comment that she did not mean it to be on the record, and any reasonable journalist would respect that rather than putting international pressure on her to resign for a comment that she attempted to make in confidence. Honestly, it makes me think that I could run this paper better, and I'm not even out of college yet! How are people supposed to trust you, or any European journalist now? It's nothing more than mere trickery. The Scotsman should be absolutely ashamed of itself, not defending its actions!
68

bill2,

09/03/2008 20:46:57
I'm glad the yanks are not so narrow minded like we are here in the UK, a black man could never get as far here as Obama has in the States.
69

Conan the Librarian™,

09/03/2008 22:49:42
www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress
70

Manon,

Canada 09/03/2008 23:51:10
Although it's undeniable that a top political advisor like Samantha Powers should have shown some self-control during the interview, I believe that the attitude of your reporter Gerri Peev is journalistically unethical. If I were her, I would be deeply concerned about my future as a credible journalist. Who will trust her again and give her info or interviews? She breached a tacit contract that all journalists know around the world: never betray your sources, confidences told off the record should remain off the record.
On the other hand, the editor should be held responsible as well. But apparently, the goal of The Scotsman was to get free publicity.
What is even more shocking is the censorship of the comments of the readers. If the publishers of this magazine are not able to handle critics, they better do another job.
71

Alexandra_,

Ontario, Canada 10/03/2008 07:27:24
Good job Ms Peev, and and excellent decision by Mr. Gilson to run with it. Keep up the good work!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.