Are the letters ABC in good circulation in the US of A?

She also said the statement was off the record, at the time she made it. The journalist printed it anyway.

Is this a good or a bad thing?

Bad if that really was the context.

Bad if that really was the context.

Why ?
I wish there was no such thing as "off the record".
And if this incident further reduces the credibility of journalists - I don't see how it is a bad thing. So what was bad ? Exposing the inexperience and naivety of Samantha Power, and by association - of Obama ?

"She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything," The Scotsman quoted Ms Power as saying.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

Whether this counts as 'off the record' or not is possibly a moot point. She was in the middle of an on the record interview, and sought to reclassify her remark after having said it.

Personally? I have reservations about the concept of 'off the record', but given that it exists I really don't know what to think about the The Scotsmans actions here.

I wish there was no such thing as "off the record".

But there is. A great many things get talked about at my place because people how that they will not end up on Samizdata if they were told to me in confidence.

I don't see how it is a bad thing

It is a social thing called honour. If someone tells you something on the understanding you will not blab it, then you are a scumbag if you do, unless there are reasonable extenuating circumstances of course.

And if you are not prepared to treat an exchange as 'off the record', they say so to the person in question and if they still shot their mouth off to you, then it clearly ain't off the record.

Whether this counts as 'off the record' or not is possibly a moot point. She was in the middle of an on the record interview, and sought to reclassify her remark after having said it.

Which is not off the record.

She really is a monster. I can barely look at a photo of her. All I see is a lust for power.

Back when I was a journalism student, the consensus on "off the record" was as follows:

a) Don't meekly accept everything proposed as "off the record". Try to convince them go on the record before you listen; if that means telling them you're not interested in hearing their latest tidbit then so be it). "Off the record" can get to be a bad habit (on both sides). Don't get into it.

b) If you agree ahead of time to keep it "off the record" (and can't convince them to change their mind afterward) then you keep it off the record. That'll teach you.

c) If they try to claim "off the record" afterwards, you're under no obligation to accede to their request. If this is a source you might need in the future you might want to give them a break (once, again you don't want to let it become a habit).

Power gave the reporter a juicy soundbit and tried to backtrack. This particular reporter will probably not need her goodwill on an ongoing basis and printing it is fair game IMO.

This particular reporter will probably not need her goodwill on an ongoing basis and printing it is fair game IMO.

I agree. No wrong (bad) done here.

It is a social thing called honour.

You get into a trust relationship with people near to you (as in the example you gave), you aren't under a trust relationship with everybody - and they don't have trust obligations toward you.
You should have enough self control not to mouth off in the presence of strangers. That proffesor Samantha Power is a fool, and the reporter did the right thing in passing on the news to the public.

By the way, I don't think Hillary is a monster. She's just insufferable.

Really Jacob? You keep promises only to people near to you?

She certainly is insufferable, but I think the "monster" label is accurate. This is true at many levels. Clearly, the unending psychodrama that is the Clinton Machine is like the walking corpses in "Night of the Living Dead"; they just won't stop and it's almost impossible to really kill them. But if you talk with anyone who's known or worked with Hillary, up close she's a nasty, evil person who cares nothing about the "little" people and won't hesitate to step on anyone in her way (or even just in the vicinity). During the Clintons' White House years seasoned, professional Secret Service agents would do anything they could to avoid being assigned to her detail. White House staffers would try to hide when she came near. And ask the people in the travel office what they think of her!

But don't just take my word for it; check out Andrew Sullivan's latest editorial on her. (Link)

No, I think "monster" is exactly the right word.

Laird: has anyone tried garlic?

“…you aren't under a trust relationship with everybody - and they don't have trust obligations toward you.”

Oh well then that’s OK. Use and abuse them because you won’t be needing their “goodwill” again. Why not kill them into the bargain, they’re just pieces of meat there to further you career, and they’d do the same to you after all…

The same people that you use on the way up
You might meet up
On your way on down

Louis Tillet reworking Allen Toussaint’s On Your Way Down.

"Oh well then that’s OK. Use and abuse them because you won’t be needing their “goodwill” again."

Well no. She was giving a very much on-the-record interview and tried to backtrack and unilaterally declare something she said as off-the-record.

She's the one who tried to break the agreement.

Really Jacob? You keep promises only to people near to you?

I trust promises only from people that I know.

Yes, but I asked about promises that you make.

Yes, but I asked about promises that you make.

I find this question uninteresting. Strangers don't make promises to strangers, as that would be meaningless, since strangers wouldn't trust or value promises. Making promises to strangers sound to me insincere, like trying to woo then. I don't do it.

OT: There was a nice scene in the immortal movie "The Wild Bunch":
The Robert Ryan character was once a buddy of bank robbers Ernest Bourgnine and William Holden. He has been caught and imprisoned, and then released upon his promise to pursue the robbers on behalf of the railway company. He pursues them all over Texas and into Mexico.
Borgnin asks: "Why does he do it ?"
Willian Holden: "But, he has promised !".
Borgnin:"What matters is who you promise to".

What matters also is the circumstances under which the putative "promise" was made. A promise given under duress is no promise at all, and I would have no compunctions about breaking it. For example, if a villain were holding hostages, I would promise him safe passage and then without hesitation shoot him at the first opportunity. I wouldn't consider that to be breaking a promise. And when someone (such as Samantha Power) is in the middle of giving an on-the-record interview and, after making an intemperate remark and then thinking better of it, tries to effectively withdraw it by unilaterally saying that it was off the record, not only would I not consider that to be truly "off the record", I would consider the demand itself to be offensive and inappropriate. The reporter was entirely correct to reject the demand.

All that said, I'm glad Power made the remark, and I think Barack Obama was spineless in firing her. He should have embraced it instead.