MMMM #64 - Sources Disclosed

Challen Stephens is a "Special Projects Editor" at The Huntsville Times. He wrote a column last Thursday in which he blasted state Democrats for trying to "plant" stories through him in the Times.

[*NOTE: See the Update below]

But his column/story/blog post seems to violate the confidentiality reporters sometimes offer to sources in exchange for information. And if not, it at least raises a lot of questions about how he and The Times do business when they deal with people who do not want their names used. I would like to know what Mr. Stevens was thinking when he wrote the column, and how he responds to criticism about it, but he hasn't returned my email or phone messages. Perhaps he'll call me if I agree to give him confidentiality? He writes about the Democrats approaching him---apparently off the record---with what they consider negative information about Mo Brooks, a GOP candidate for Congress. He tells them he's not interested because it's not a story, and implies he gets these kind of offers of information all the time from both the Democratic and Republican National Committees. He writes:

Last month's attempt set a new bar for the ridiculous, even for these two groups. When the Democratic operative said she wouldn't go on the record with her ethical concerns, I explained that their e-mail wasn't news. At least not yet.

He says he might report it IF someone makes a public allegation, and promises to include the information closer to election time...

He continues...

But that wasn't good enough for Jessica Santillo, press secretary of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She likes to work off the record. So she arranged to get me a local Democrat to complain on the record. She did just that, and quickly. But this isn't our role here at the newspaper. We keep an eye on Huntsville; we're not here to repeat manufactured spin of hired guns on either side. Not when we can spot it.

So apparently the rules he's operating under changed...he wanted an on the record source, but when provided with one, nothing...and now he has named his source...! The one who "Likes to work off the record".

She then sent six e-mails, each more strident than the last. "I have not shared it with any other news outlets," wrote Santillo at one point, "but will need to know by 1 p.m. today if you are not planning to write."

By then she had broken the unwritten rules of these press/flack relationships. There are limits. She pushed too hard, so hard that her efforts were of greater news value than her pitch.

So there are "rules and limits"....I would love to know what those are! If you push too hard you get named in the paper? Are three e-mails OK, but four are too many? Just how many phone calls are allowed? How often has he allowed "sources" to "plant" stories in the past, and can we presume they didn't push too hard? If someone calls to tell him about an event, is that "planting" a story if they don't want their name used? And perhaps most important of all, why isn't the information about public tax dollars being spent to advance political aims a story anyway? Maybe the fact that he doesn't consider it a story is a story itself!

MMMM # 64 - Part 2

I somehow missed a media development on the West Coast first reported by The NY Times and discussed this week in the "On The Media" NPR program. Seems the Hockey team the L.A. Kings have hired their own "reporter" to write stories about them. No, he insists, he is not a PR guy, but an actual reporter, sitting one seat away from his old newspaper-reporter press box seat where he gets "good-natured ribbing" from the "other" reporters covering the games. Really? So his check is signed by the team but he's going to be an impartial writer? If this model is the future of journalism I give up.

[*UPDATE: Challen Stephens was out of town last week. He returned my phone call this morning and we talked about his column on political operatives "planting stories". The main questions I raised about the column focused on the apparently off the record conversations he had with Jessica Santillo, press secretary of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Stephens says he did not consider the communications to be off the record ("I never used the words 'off the record'," he said.), and that when he does agree to speak with a source under those circumstances, he'll later go to jail if necessary rather than reveal the identity of the source. "That's sacred," he said.

He does admit the column was not very clear on the nature of the communications (e-mails mostly, after an initial phone call). I have to agree, especially when he writes at one point:

Last month's attempt set a new bar for the ridiculous, even for these two groups. When the Democratic operative said she wouldn't go on the record with her ethical concerns.

But if they weren't "off the record" in the first place, why would it be necessary for them to go back "on" it? The episode points out the importance of reporters being very, very clear about the nature of their work-related conversations. Regarding the question of the "unwritten rules", Stephens said he would "hate to spell them out", and that they vary depending on the person he's dealing with. For example, they're not the same for a veteran political operative as they might be for a less savvy individual. [The Monday Morning Media Memo is a regular feature of this blog.]