Hours Ago, NYT and AP Say They Wil NOT Attend OFF The Record

[Kathianne]

stories from Holder:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-new-york-times-off-the-record_n_3355251.html


NEW YORK -- The New York Times and Associated Press said Wednesday that they will not attend a meeting this week between Attorney General Eric Holder and the Washington bureau chiefs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-bureau-chiefs_n_3352962.html) of several media outlets to discuss guidelines for journalists in leak investigations.


Times executive editor Jill Abramson cited the Justice Department's request that the discussion be kept off the record as a reason for not attending.


"We will not be attending the session at DOJ," Abramson said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general. Our Washington bureau is aggressively covering the department's handling of leak investigations at this time."


"Evidently, there will be a future session with department officials on the substance of how the law should be applied in leak cases and I am hopeful that our counsel, David McCraw, will be able to participate in that meeting," Abramson added.


President Obama announced last week (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/obama-leak-investigations-journalism-chill_n_3327659.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) that Holder would meet with media executives to discuss guidelines concerning journalists caught up in leak investigations. There has been growing concern among journalists and lawmakers about the DOJ's tactics following the seizure of Associated Press phone records (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-doj-leaks_n_3268932.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) in one investigation and the accusation in court documents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/doj-fox-news-james-rosen_n_3307422.html?utm_hp_ref=the-backstory) that a Fox News reporter may have committed a crime in the course of reporting in another.


With the Times refusing to accept the off-the-record ground rules, it seems likely other news organizations will similarly decline to meet with Holder.


AP spokeswoman Erin Madigan White told HuffPost in a statement that the organization would also not attend if the meeting is off the record.

...



Where will the others jump? With the Obama or with the 'journalists.' Yes, the quotes gag me.

[Kathianne]

Special counsel, anyone? It's much more likely now.

[red states rule]

They will attend Kat. A good lap dog never turns down a chance to show their love. Besides who the hell wants a visit from the IRS. the Domestic Terrorism Unit, and be called a racist on all the MSNBC shows?

I will be very surprised if any of the invited "guests" fail to show up

[Marcus Aurelius]

Holder; 'We'll tell you what happened, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else. Deal?'

[Kathianne]

Via Drudge:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/holder-runs-into-roadblocks-on-off-the-record-meetings-on-leaks/


May 29th, 2013
11:20 PM ET

<!-- /cnnShareThisContent --> 2 hours ago Holder runs into roadblocks on off-the-record meetings on leaks (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/holder-runs-into-roadblocks-on-off-the-record-meetings-on-leaks/)

Posted by
CNN Senior Producer Carol Cratty

(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-senior-producer-carol-cratty/) Updated at 7:21 a.m. ET on Thursday 5/30
Washington (CNN) - Attorney General Eric Holder's plans to sit down with media representatives to discuss guidelines for handling investigations into leaks to the news media have run into trouble.


The Associated Press issued a statement Wednesday objecting to plans for the meetings to be off the record. "If it is not on the record, AP will not attend and instead will offer our views on how the regulations should be updated in an open letter," said Erin Madigan White, the AP's media relations manager.

The New York Times is taking the same position. "It isn't appropriate for us to attend an off-the-record meeting with the attorney general," executive editor Jill Abramson said in a statement.


Like the New York Times and the Associated Press, CNN will decline the invitation for an off-the-record meeting. A CNN spokesperson says if the meeting with the attorney general is on the record, CNN would plan to participate.


The Huffington Post's Washington bureau chief, Ryan Grim, also said he will not attend unless the meeting is on the record. "A conversation specifically about the freedom of the press should be an open one. We have a responsibility not to betray that," Grim told CNN.


But Politico posted an item on its website saying editor-in-chief John Harris plans to attend one of the meetings with Holder.


"As editor-in-chief, I routinely have off-the-record conversations with people who have questions or grievances about our coverage or our newsgathering practices," Harris said in the Politico item. "I feel anyone - whether an official or ordinary reader - should be able to have an unguarded conversation with someone in a position of accountability for a news organization when there is good reason."

...

[Kathianne]

At Twitter DNC goes bonkers on media, Jake Tapper responds:

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/29/bam-dncs-woodhouse-tells-journos-to-suck-up-off-the-record-holder-meeting-or-shaddup-tapper-ace-shred/

more:

https://twitter.com/woodhouseb/status/339856448928489473

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

stories from Holder:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-new-york-times-off-the-record_n_3355251.html



Where will the others jump? With the Obama or with the 'journalists.' Yes, the quotes gag me.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kathianne again.

Not attending is still a damn long cry from the massive crusade they should have started against obama and his massive corruption and even treasonous actions. If a Republican prez had engaged in even one tenth as much corruption he would have been crucified by the press and impeached by Congress long before now.
I put this as merely symbolic resistance. A show to save face while they still support this leftist, lying traitor..
I'll only believe they have "refound any integrity" when I see them publicly called for his impeachment and his freaking head.......-Tyr

[Kathianne]

As passionate as you may feel Tyr, right now they are admitting there is some there, there. That's coming a long way. Bottom line, there is nothing to warrant impeachment yet, whether or not there will be depends mightily on a free press. Will they keep up this 'rebellion' on a sort? Time will tell:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/7-reasons-why-the-media-shouldn-t-keep-eric-holder-s-secrets-20130530


7 Reasons Why the Media Shouldn't Keep Eric Holder's Secrets What "off the record" means and why it matters to you.
By Ron Fournier (http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/13)
Updated: May 30, 2013 | 9:40 a.m.
May 30, 2013 | 9:19 a.m.


The dustup over whether journalists should meet privately with Attorney General Eric Holder is a forest-for-the-trees flap.


The existential issue still tangling Washington in knots a dozen years after 9/11 is how to balance our primal need to protect U.S. security with our fundamental belief in civil liberties.


Six months into a second term, President Obama seems to realize that he and his predecessor let the pendulum swing too far. The president is recalibrating the so-called war on terrorism and reconsidering its shadowy tactics, including the use of drones and the methods for investigating people who leak national security secrets.


That brings us to the Holder-media issue. While being the ultimate inside-baseball story, it does highlight the Obama administration's ignorance of the media's role in Washington as well as the malpractice that permeates its communications operation.


How the administration handles a micro issue like this may have a negative impact on the existential struggle. A forest, after all, is a gathering of trees.


The basic facts:


The Justice Department seized telephone records at the Associated Press as part of an investigation into the leak of a foiled terrorist plot. The media spying was unprecedented in its scope and in violation of the department's own guidelines.


In a separate leak investigation, the department monitored the e-mails and whereabouts of a Fox News reporter. In a warrant application, Holder's team labeled the reporter a criminal co-conspirator.


Under severe criticism from journalists, Republicans and even his liberal allies, Obama expressed concern over the potential intrusion on First Amendment rights and ordered Holder to review department policies.


As part of that review, Holder asked to meet with Washington bureau chiefs of major news organizations Thursday and Friday. This is where it gets sticky: He insisted that the sessions be "off the record."


In Washington, there are three forms of attribution.


On the record means the official being interviewed by the media will be quoted and identified by name.


On background generally means the information provided by the official can be broadcast and published, but the source's identification will be protected by the reporter. The Associated Press Stylebook, the gold standard on such questions, recommends that anonymity be granted only in cases when there is no other way to get the vital information, and the information is a matter of fact, not opinion or partisan spin.


Off the record generally means the information cannot be shared with the public. "Off the record" is (or should be) rarely used in Washington because it puts a reporter in the position of a priest: Keeping the government's secrets.


By tradition, conversations in Washington are on the record unless the journalist and the official mutually agree to other terms.


Unfortunately, many reporters confuse or abuse these terms. First, news stories (including some of my own) are littered with "blind quotes" from officials granted anonymity to settle scores, disseminate talking points, or opine.


Second, unethical reporters play games with ground rules. Howard Dean, a former governor, presidential candidate, and Democratic Party chairman, complained on MSNBC's Morning Joe that journalists habitually conduct conversations "off the record" and later attribute the information to an anonymous source, a violation of the source-reporter agreement.


Political figures also confuse and abuse the terms. When journalists cede their authority to negotiate the terms of a conversation or briefing (which happens far too often in Washington, a subject for a separate post), government and political operatives spin, distort, demagogue, and even lie "on background" and "off the record"--knowing their names won't be attached and thus they won't be held accountable
Hopefully, this is enough background to explain the many reasons why bureau chiefs should meet with Holder only "on the record"--with every detail made public and attributed to the attorney general and his guests.





This is important stuff. The debate over balancing liberty and security needs to involve the public, and not be limited to a handful of government officials and the media elite.
The media's fundamental job is to shine a light in the darkest corners of government. If we stand for anything, it's transparency and accountability. Meeting secretly with Holder borders on hypocrisy.
The public's trust in media is already at an all-time low. Among the many reasons for the justified lack of faith is the perception that journalists curry favor with the elites rather than hold them ruthlessly accountable. A private meeting with the attorney general can't help the lap-dog reputation. It would also fuel paranoia of conservatives who are convinced that the media is "in the tank" for Obama.
Though a relatively minor consideration, bureau chiefs compromise themselves and their newsrooms by meeting privately with Holder. Each chief has a team of reporters under orders today to find out what happened at the meetings. The chiefs can help their reporters with details of the talks, but that would violate the ground rules. They can keep their mouths shut but risk blowback from their teams when competitors report meeting details. There will be leaks; officials on one or both sides of the table will tell reporters about the conversations. So why not face that reality and conduct the meetings openly?
There is an uncomfortable irony in the fact that an attorney general investigating his policy for spying on the media is asking the media to keep his words secret.
It could be argued that no self-respecting journalist would meet with Holder under ground rules that forbid pressing him on his veracity. In congressional testimony, the attorney general said that he had never personally been involved in the potential prosecution of a journalist who disclosed sensitive material. Congress needs to determine whether that statement is at odds with the disclosure that he approved the Fox News warrant.
Obama's team still doesn't get it. One wonders why the media would trust Holder's motive given how the administration has conducted itself so far. The most recent case in point: When The New York Times and AP announced that they would not meet with Holder "off the record," Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse tweeted that the decision "kind of forfeits your right to gripe." Well, no--it doesn't. Woodhouse was treating the media like a political opponent: Attack, distort, and deflect. He probably didn't realize the Orwellian implications of his wisecrack. Even the liberal ACLU took issue (http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/aclu-defends-news-organizations-for-rejecting-off-the-record)with it.


Stepping back from the trees, the broader debate is not about whiny reporters. It's not even about George W. Bush or Obama as much as it is about precedents for the next president.

(http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-if-the-next-president-is-even-worse-20130528)

It is a fair bet that history will look favorably upon Obama if he leads us to a post-9/11 paradigm that keeps American safe and protects our liberties--if he can ease us off a constant war footing.


But he needs to go about it right. Small things matter in the big picture. Obama might want to ask Holder to explain himself at a town-hall meeting. Not with bureau chiefs, but to the public at large. On the damn record.

[aboutime]

Special counsel, anyone? It's much more likely now.


Kathianne. Gotta disagree with everyone on this. Obama is the one who chooses the Special Counsel. And, if one is chosen. It could take more than a Year before anyone is able to discuss, or bring up the subject since Special Counsel's work SECRETLY, and off the record.

It would be a huge mistake to do. In my opinion. And, due to the complacent attitudes of a large majority of Americans who HAVE NO IDEA what a Special Counsel is looking for. We might never hear, or learn anything as long as Obama is still in office.

Everyone should think hard about making such demands.

To do so, and succeed would be the Ideal situation for Obama, and Holder to HIDE BEHIND, while still Destroying this nation.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Gotta disagree with everyone on this. Obama is the one who chooses the Special Counsel. And, if one is chosen. It could take more than a Year before anyone is able to discuss, or bring up the subject since Special Counsel's work SECRETLY, and off the record.

It would be a huge mistake to do. In my opinion. And, due to the complacent attitudes of a large majority of Americans who HAVE NO IDEA what a Special Counsel is looking for. We might never hear, or learn anything as long as Obama is still in office.

Everyone should think hard about making such demands.

To do so, and succeed would be the Ideal situation for Obama, and Holder to HIDE BEHIND, while still Destroying this nation.

Holder would appoint a special counsel. Worked out well for Nixon, Reagan, Clinton right?

[aboutime]

Holder would appoint a special counsel. Worked out well for Nixon, Reagan, Clinton right?


Okay. Holder. Tell us how much you trust Holder...TODAY?

You honestly believe HOLDER......Investigating HOLDER is the one, and only answer?

[tailfins]

They will attend Kat. A good lap dog never turns down a chance to show their love. Besides who the hell wants a visit from the IRS. the Domestic Terrorism Unit, and be called a racist on all the MSNBC shows?

I will be very surprised if any of the invited "guests" fail to show up

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make any noise if no one is there to hear it?

[Kathianne]

Okay. Holder. Tell us how much you trust Holder...TODAY?

You honestly believe HOLDER......Investigating HOLDER is the one, and only answer?

Me? I AM in favor of special counsel. Holder should NOT be investigating Holder.

[aboutime]

Me? I AM in favor of special counsel. Holder should NOT be investigating Holder.


Agreed. But, if as you stated. Holder appoints a Special Counsel. How is that not a conflict of interest...for starters. Same could be said for Obama. Does anyone honestly think, or believe he wouldn't pick a counsel that is supportive of Holder, and Him????

Really? That's why I think a Special Counsel is a bad idea. Everything will be buried, and nobody will ever get any answers. Much like FAST AND FURIOUS, and BENGHAZI.

[Kathianne]

Agreed. But, if as you stated. Holder appoints a Special Counsel. How is that not a conflict of interest...for starters. Same could be said for Obama. Does anyone honestly think, or believe he wouldn't pick a counsel that is supportive of Holder, and Him????

Really? That's why I think a Special Counsel is a bad idea. Everything will be buried, and nobody will ever get any answers. Much like FAST AND FURIOUS, and BENGHAZI.

AT, once again, the President does not pick the counsel, the AG does. Once again, same was true for the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. How did that work out? Let's see: Nixon resigned. Reagan had to apologize for Iran-Contra and new legislation was passed; if memory serves, Clinton was impeached.

By the time there is no choice about appointing one and we are nearing that time, the AG is in no position to appoint someone that is a 'good old boy.' The canoe is in the muck and there isn't a paddle to be had.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10970620130530120100.jpg

[Voted4Reagan]

stories from Holder:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/eric-holder-new-york-times-off-the-record_n_3355251.html



Where will the others jump? With the Obama or with the 'journalists.' Yes, the quotes gag me.



Ethics?? From the NY TIMES? I am impressed!

[BillyBob]

We have the IRS pleading the 5th.
We have the Attorney General only responding off record.
We have the Sec of State covering up a terrorist attack.

What happened to transparency?

[Kathianne]

We have the IRS pleading the 5th.
We have the Attorney General only responding off record.
We have the Sec of State covering up a terrorist attack.

What happened to transparency?

You believed them? Even the Democrats didn't do that.

[BillyBob]

You believed them? Even the Democrats didn't do that.


Of course I didn't believe them. Just pointing out to the 2 1/2 libs who post here that their beloved dictator is a liar. And there were plenty of libs who DID believe him and still do.

[Kathianne]

Of course I didn't believe them. Just pointing out to the 2 1/2 libs who post here that their beloved dictator is a liar. And there were plenty of libs who DID believe him and still do.

Right.

[BillyBob]

Right.

Right.

[gabosaurus]

Really? That's why I think a Special Counsel is a bad idea. Everything will be buried, and nobody will ever get any answers. Much like FAST AND FURIOUS, and BENGHAZI.

And 9-11.

[Robert A Whit]

AT, once again, the President does not pick the counsel, the AG does. Once again, same was true for the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. How did that work out? Let's see: Nixon resigned. Reagan had to apologize for Iran-Contra and new legislation was passed; if memory serves, Clinton was impeached.

By the time there is no choice about appointing one and we are nearing that time, the AG is in no position to appoint someone that is a 'good old boy.' The canoe is in the muck and there isn't a paddle to be had.

Link please to that apology you said Reagan gave.

[logroller]

Link please to that apology you said Reagan gave.

http://youtu.be/2Pa4_NBlYK8
http://youtu.be/2Pa4_NBlYK8

[red states rule]

I wonder if the left would be yawning if John Ashcroft would have named Sam Donaldson as a possible criminal; judge shopped until he found a Judge to sign off on the documents; tapped Donaldson's parents phones. then lied about his invlovement under oath

It is clear the left has no problem with the Obama regime going after a Fox News reporter - since the hate the left has for anyone who works for Fox News is well known. Of course with most libs the ends always justify the means