Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a "liar". Obama agrees.

[Sheilbh]

Are journalists obligated to report *everything* anyone says, even if it is clearly not official, and  intended to be private conversation? Do public figures have to employ extreme measures to have a moment to speak to one another without concern that their words are going to be repeated, even when the conversation is not formal?

If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it.  That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption.  I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election.  She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'.  Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target.  You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.

In addition I don't think the French officials (or US Press Secretaries, or British spin doctors) get this by appealing to the need for public figures to be able to have private conversations (which is real) or a sense of decency.  I think they get journalists to not discuss this because they threaten them.  The journalists who spin well will get more access the ones who are inconvenient won't. 

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy.  That's more like rumor and gossip.

[Berkut]

Are journalists obligated to report *everything* anyone says, even if it is clearly not official, and  intended to be private conversation? Do public figures have to employ extreme measures to have a moment to speak to one another without concern that their words are going to be repeated, even when the conversation is not formal?

If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it.  That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption.  I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election.  She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'.  Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target.  You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.

In addition I don't think the French officials (or US Press Secretaries, or British spin doctors) get this by appealing to the need for public figures to be able to have private conversations (which is real) or a sense of decency.  I think they get journalists to not discuss this because they threaten them.  The journalists who spin well will get more access the ones who are inconvenient won't. 

What is newsworthy though?

I think journalists have an obligation to be responsible journalists, and just because someone says somethng that might sell a couple papers or get the reporters name mentioned does not make it news.

And I would most freaking definitely threaten any journalist with lost access if they are going to report everything I say when it is clearly not intended for public consumption. Sure, as a journalist, it may very well be worth losing access if in fact what is being reported is truly newsworthy. A aside comment who's newsworthiness amounts to "Hey, it look like Obama doesn't like Netanyahu very much" hardly meets anything close to that standard, and is damaging to boot.

This is a *perfect* example of what actual responsible journalism entails.

And no, this is NOT like someone being interviewed, pretty much by definition anything said in an interview is intended for public consumption. I am a little surprised that you would argue that something said during an interview to a reporter where there is clearly an expectation that your words are being recorded with the intent to publish them "is like" something said not in an interview not to a reporter in a private conversation where there is clearly an expectation that your words are not being recorded with no intent to publish them. I am not sure you could have found a less "like" example.

If a public figure like Obama has to worry that every word he says in private is fair game for any reporter in the area, the solution is obvious - don't let there be any reporters in the area. If I am a reporter, that is bad for me, so I am going to try to be a responsible reporter and let their private conversations remain private, barring some kind of serious revelation, in which case I am perfectly happy to lose my access if necessary to report it.

[Martinus]

Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".

It's not even that.  It's reporting something you may have thought you heard.  Since the reporter wouldn't know if he heard it correctly or any of the context of such a statement it's not really responsible to report it.  If Sarkozy or Obama had told a reporter about a conversation they had with the other one and they state their opposite number had said something, that might be newsworthy. 

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy.  That's more like rumor and gossip.

Clearly it's neither rumour or gossip, it's a fact.  It was heard by a room full of journalists.

Though rumour and gossip have a part to play in journalism.  Otherwise journalists are just enabling loyal cover-ups - Kennedy's ill health springs to mind.

What is newsworthy though?

I think that's something reporters and editors will work out.  If the extent of Sarko and Obama's overheard conversation was about the weather they were having in Cannes - that's not newsworthy.  Their opinion of the Netanyahu and slight, non-controversial discussions of the peace process on the other hand are newsworthy.

I think journalists have an obligation to be responsible journalists, and just because someone says somethng that might sell a couple papers or get the reporters name mentioned does not make it news.

A journalists only obligation is to bolster their sales.  They're in a business, not the clergy.  If there's a story, like this, that's newsworthy then that will sell papers improving their circulation, helping their publication and increasing the amount of information in the public domain.  It's a virtuous circle.

And I would most freaking definitely threaten any journalist with lost access if they are going to report everything I say when it is clearly not intended for public consumption. Sure, as a journalist, it may very well be worth losing access if in fact what is being reported is truly newsworthy.

This gives far too much power to journalists and politicians and their press secretaries though.  If there's not a culture of generally reporting everything then surely the hack can be bought off from one newsworthy (negative) story by getting promised an exclusive on a more newsworthy (positive) story.  All of this happens anyway but I think the more the general aim of journalists is to talk about everything including the rumours and gossip then I think the less effective it is and the less the 'elite' of the media and politics are able to regulate information about them.

And no, this is NOT like someone being interviewed, pretty much by definition anything said in an interview is intended for public consumption. I am a little surprised that you would argue that something said during an interview to a reporter where there is clearly an expectation that your words are being recorded with the intent to publish them "is like" something said not in an interview not to a reporter in a private conversation where there is clearly an expectation that your words are not being recorded with no intent to publish them.

It's exactly like someone being interviewed and then trying to declare something off the record after the event.  If you're a public figure, in public, with journalists (or anyone else) and you've not been guaranteed that your words won't be reported (Chatham House rules, off the record conversation) then you should assume that anything you say will be reported.  And that's entirely right.

If this had been recorded by TV cameras rather than just heard it would be showing on loop on the news as the Bush 'yo Blair ... Syria needs to sort this shit out' conversation was'.  I can't see a difference and I don't think that got complained about though it was similarly an accidental recording of what was clearly meant to be a private conversation. 

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".

You say that like it's a bad thing.  The entire point of journalists is to get them.

[crazy canuck]

If it's newsworthy then absolutely they have a duty to report it.  That's what they're there for not to simply pass on the messages that are official and intended for public consumption.  I think this is like the Samantha Powers case in the 2008 election.  She was being interviewed and said that she thought Hilary was a bit of a 'monster' and after that said 'of course that's off the record'.  Off the record is something that should be agreed in advance between reporter and target.  You can't say something interesting or in this case cock up and then just get retroactively say 'you didn't hear that' (the only legitimate reason for not reporting something) and get the journalists to acquiesce.

I agree that "off the record" should be agreed to in advance generally.  But the media also has an obligation to make a judgment about such things.  Your bias shows when you refer to the people the media reports on as "targets".  I think we lose much if the media take the position they will report on everything that might be sensational rather than reporting on things that are newsworthy but given recent trends (Fox News and our own copy cat here in Canada) I am not hopeful.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I agree with Berkut. This is classic "gotcha journalism".

You say that like it's a bad thing.  The entire point of journalists is to get them.

Your timing couldnt be better as that is the very bias I discerned from your earlier post.  The entire point of journalism is definitely not "gotcha".

My God, two times in one week I have agreed with Marti.

[Sheilbh]

It's not even that.  It's reporting something you may have thought you heard.  Since the reporter wouldn't know if he heard it correctly or any of the context of such a statement it's not really responsible to report it. 

Their microphones had been turned on so the journalists sat waiting for the press conference to start could hear them in the next room.  That's not something they thought they overheard.  A journalist's job is to report so they should be able to take notes of what's heard correctly, a roomful of them should certainly be able to confirm something like this.

Context matters, I agree.  But if it's not possible to give that and the facts are still interesting then they should be reported.

If Sarkozy or Obama had told a reporter about a conversation they had with the other one and they state their opposite number had said something, that might be newsworthy.

That wouldn't ever happen except possibly in off the record briefings and even then not by Sarko or Obama.  Though that's perfectly legitimate too.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure if "I thought I may have heard half a conversation between two leaders" is actually newsworthy.  That's more like rumor and gossip.

Clearly it's neither rumour or gossip, it's a fact.  It was heard by a room full of journalists.

Did they all hear it?  Are they sure they got it right?  I often mishear things in loud setting.

[Sheilbh]

Did they all hear it?  Are they sure they got it right?  I often mishear things in loud setting.

This is a roomful of journalists doing their job.  There's a reporter sat in a room in Cannes waiting for a press conference, he puts on their little insta-translator headphones on and they suddenly hear a conversation between two Presidents.  If he doesn't shush the room, and get that right then he should be fired.

I think a half-dozen plugged their own headphones in before the press conference started.

Edit:  Similarly what's the difference between this and the footage we had from Cannes of David Cameron talking to Obama.  The news channels here got lipreaders in to see what Cameron was saying.  That footage with subtitles (again quite dull 'we need the Eurozone to sort this out...maybe get the IMF involved...' Obama shakes his head) is probably less reliable and less newsworthy than this but still, it seems to me, a legitimate item to broadcast or write up.

[The Minsky Moment]

Still, everybody knows that the israeli premier is not truly commited to the peace process with the Palestinians.

Which makes the US opposition to the recognition of Palestine at the UN a clear demonstration that America is not at all impartial

The second does not follow from the first.

(but Washington still keeps trying to be accepted as an arbitrator between both sides, which is laughable).

But in reality, the opposite is true - it is the PA that keeps trying to get the US engaged, because the PA believes (probably correctly) that the US is the only party that can help put pressure on Israel and get any results.
Ask yourself why the PA doesn't look to the EU as anything other than a glorified bank.

[Razgovory]

Did they all hear it?  Are they sure they got it right?  I often mishear things in loud setting.

This is a roomful of journalists doing their job.  There's a reporter sat in a room in Cannes waiting for a press conference, he puts on their little insta-translator headphones on and they suddenly hear a conversation between two Presidents.  If he doesn't shush the room, and get that right then he should be fired.

I think a half-dozen plugged their own headphones in before the press conference started.

Edit:  Similarly what's the difference between this and the footage we had from Cannes of David Cameron talking to Obama.  The news channels here got lipreaders in to see what Cameron was saying.  That footage with subtitles (again quite dull 'we need the Eurozone to sort this out...maybe get the IMF involved...' Obama shakes his head) is probably less reliable and less newsworthy than this but still, it seems to me, a legitimate item to broadcast or write up.

Perhaps you should look into the legitimacy of hiring lip readers.

[Brazen]

Wow, a lot of you want some really bland news. How long do you think it would take a publication to die from lack of advertising revenue if its circulation depended only on news voluntarily released  from official sources?

Quick precis of the journalistic law and best practice that applies here. Yes, you are obliged to say "off the record" BEFORE Saying anything that could otherwise be used by a journalist. A story can be published if the editorial team agrees it is in the public interest (not just interesting to the public) and they have gone to "reasonable lengths" to ensure its veracity.

To a certain point, editorial opinion pieces rise above this so long as they are clearly presented as an individual's opinion, not that of the publication.

A story will be published (or approved for pursuit) if it fulfils these and ideally trumps competitors so your publication ensures its ongoing survival.

Even in the restricted field I work in, my "scoop quotes" often come from people I'd interviewed earlier in the day who later talk more casually over a glass of wine.