That story the other day about David Brock’s organization attacking Bernie Sanders? As I suspected, the person talking to the reporter thought it was off the record, because it was just too careless otherwise. The reporter is claiming it wasn’t:
In this instance, Clinton’s campaign itself wasn’t the one doing the attacking. Rather, it was Correct the Record, a super PAC closely aligned with her campaign, that sent an email with opposition research on Sanders to a Huffington Post reporter on Monday suggesting numerous “similarities” between Sanders and the new leader of the United Kingdom’s Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn. The email was sent with a request that it remain off the record, but the reporter never agreed to those terms.
That’s really kind of bullshit on HuffPo’s part. If you tell the reporter something you’re about to share is off the record, the reporter should either 1) accept that (and continuing to communicate implies that) or 2) spell it out: “No, I don’t agree to that.”
To continue a conversation when one party thinks they’re off the record is duplicitous and unethical. I wouldn’t ever deal with that reporter again.
But more to the point, breaking an agreement the source thought they had makes the reporter into an unofficial arm of the Sanders campaign.
Now, I get to advocate — because I’m a blogger! But when I get news from someone, I want either an unbiased source, or a reporter who’s transparent about their biases.
I stopped reading HuffPo in 2008. I wouldn’t trust them as a source for unbiased political news under any circumstances.
I don’t care if a publication is biased — if they admit it and you can take it into account. But pretending to be unbiased when you’re not? Dangerous stuff.
Unofficial arm of the Sanders campaign perhaps, but more like a false flag operation of the Koch brothers and the 1%. The result is an attack against the most progressive of the candidates. The media attempting to portray resurgent populism in a negative light. Gotta keep that ‘horse race’ meme alive.