What do you think?
Rate this book
Off The Record: The Press, the Government, and the War over Anonymous Sources
When Norman Pearlstine—as editor in chief of Time Inc.—agreed to give prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald a reporter’s notes of a conversation with a “confidential source,” he was vilified for betraying the freedom of the press. But in this hard-hitting inside story, Pearlstine shows that “Plamegate” was not the clear case it seemed to be—and that confidentiality has become a weapon in the White House’s war on the press, a war fought with the unwitting complicity of the press itself.
Watergate and the publication of the Pentagon Papers are the benchmark incidents of government malfeasance exposed by a fearless press. But as Pearlstine explains with great clarity and brio, the press’s hunger for a new Watergate has made reporters vulnerable to officials who use confidentiality to get their message out, even if it means leaking state secrets and breaking the law. Prosecutors appointed to investigate the government have investigated the press instead; news organizations such as The New York Times have defended the principle of confidentiality at all costs—implicitly putting themselves above the law. Meanwhile, the use of unnamed sources has become common in everything from celebrity weeklies to the so-called papers of record.
What is to be done? Pearlstine calls on Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting journalists from the needless intrusions of government; at the same time, he calls on the press to name its sources whenever possible. Off the Record is a powerful argument with the vividness and narrative drive of the best long-form journalism; it is sure to spark controversy among the people who run the government—and among the people who tell their stories.
Norman Pearlstine , editor in chief of Time Inc . from 1995 to 2005, was previously the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal ; he trained as a lawyer before making his career as a journalist. He is now a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group. He lives in Manhattan. When Norman Pearlstine—as editor in chief of Time Inc .—agreed to give prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald a reporter’s notes of a conversation with a “confidential source,” he was vilified for betraying the freedom of the press. But in this hard-hitting inside story, Pearlstine shows that “Plamegate” was not the clear case it seemed to be—and that confidentiality has become a weapon in the White House’s war on the press, a war fought with the unwitting complicity of the press itself.
Watergate and the publication of the Pentagon Papers are the benchmark incidents of government malfeasance exposed by a fearless press. But as Pearlstine explains with great clarity and brio, the press’s hunger for a new Watergate has made reporters vulnerable to officials who use confidentiality to get their message out, even if it means leaking state secrets and breaking the law. Prosecutors appointed to investigate the government have investigated the press instead; news organizations such as The New York Times have defended the principle of confidentiality at all costs—implicitly putting themselves above the law. Meanwhile, the use of unnamed sources has become common in everything from celebrity weeklies to the so-called papers of record.
Pearlstine calls on Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting journalists from the needless intrusions of government; at the same time, he calls on the press to name its sources whenever possible. Off the Record is a powerful argument with the vividness and narrative drive of the best long-form journalism; it is sure to spark controversy among the people who run the government—and among the people who tell their stories.
"Mr. Pearlstine’s central argument is compelling, particularly his contention that when a news outlet has fought a First Amendment case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost, continued resistance amounts to defying the entire legal system, a choice that should be reserved for truly extraordinary causes. 'No one is above the law and that includes publishers,' he writes."— William Powers, The New York Times “Back in the summer of 2005 it was no fun being Norman Pearlstine. As editor in chief of Time Inc., he had been battling Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the tenacious special prosecutor investigating the Valerie Wilson case . . . Mr. Pearlstine took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which early that summer declined to review it. Having thus exhausted all legal remedies, he faced a stark He could continue resisting—meaning jail time for Mr. Cooper and costly fines for Time Inc.—or wave the white flag. In a decision he described at the time as ‘the most difficult I have made in more than 36 years in the news business,’ Mr. Pearlstine gave in, turning over Mr. Cooper’s notes (against the reporter’s wishes) and other files Mr. Fitzgerald had requested. The media class was stunned . . . Off the Record is Mr. Pearlstine’s effort to defend his choice. This is no easy trick. Media bigs are not a very sympathetic class to begin with. And despite...
Watergate and the publication of the Pentagon Papers are the benchmark incidents of government malfeasance exposed by a fearless press. But as Pearlstine explains with great clarity and brio, the press’s hunger for a new Watergate has made reporters vulnerable to officials who use confidentiality to get their message out, even if it means leaking state secrets and breaking the law. Prosecutors appointed to investigate the government have investigated the press instead; news organizations such as The New York Times have defended the principle of confidentiality at all costs—implicitly putting themselves above the law. Meanwhile, the use of unnamed sources has become common in everything from celebrity weeklies to the so-called papers of record.
What is to be done? Pearlstine calls on Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting journalists from the needless intrusions of government; at the same time, he calls on the press to name its sources whenever possible. Off the Record is a powerful argument with the vividness and narrative drive of the best long-form journalism; it is sure to spark controversy among the people who run the government—and among the people who tell their stories.
Norman Pearlstine , editor in chief of Time Inc . from 1995 to 2005, was previously the managing editor of The Wall Street Journal ; he trained as a lawyer before making his career as a journalist. He is now a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group. He lives in Manhattan. When Norman Pearlstine—as editor in chief of Time Inc .—agreed to give prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald a reporter’s notes of a conversation with a “confidential source,” he was vilified for betraying the freedom of the press. But in this hard-hitting inside story, Pearlstine shows that “Plamegate” was not the clear case it seemed to be—and that confidentiality has become a weapon in the White House’s war on the press, a war fought with the unwitting complicity of the press itself.
Watergate and the publication of the Pentagon Papers are the benchmark incidents of government malfeasance exposed by a fearless press. But as Pearlstine explains with great clarity and brio, the press’s hunger for a new Watergate has made reporters vulnerable to officials who use confidentiality to get their message out, even if it means leaking state secrets and breaking the law. Prosecutors appointed to investigate the government have investigated the press instead; news organizations such as The New York Times have defended the principle of confidentiality at all costs—implicitly putting themselves above the law. Meanwhile, the use of unnamed sources has become common in everything from celebrity weeklies to the so-called papers of record.
Pearlstine calls on Congress to pass a federal shield law protecting journalists from the needless intrusions of government; at the same time, he calls on the press to name its sources whenever possible. Off the Record is a powerful argument with the vividness and narrative drive of the best long-form journalism; it is sure to spark controversy among the people who run the government—and among the people who tell their stories.
"Mr. Pearlstine’s central argument is compelling, particularly his contention that when a news outlet has fought a First Amendment case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost, continued resistance amounts to defying the entire legal system, a choice that should be reserved for truly extraordinary causes. 'No one is above the law and that includes publishers,' he writes."— William Powers, The New York Times “Back in the summer of 2005 it was no fun being Norman Pearlstine. As editor in chief of Time Inc., he had been battling Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the tenacious special prosecutor investigating the Valerie Wilson case . . . Mr. Pearlstine took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which early that summer declined to review it. Having thus exhausted all legal remedies, he faced a stark He could continue resisting—meaning jail time for Mr. Cooper and costly fines for Time Inc.—or wave the white flag. In a decision he described at the time as ‘the most difficult I have made in more than 36 years in the news business,’ Mr. Pearlstine gave in, turning over Mr. Cooper’s notes (against the reporter’s wishes) and other files Mr. Fitzgerald had requested. The media class was stunned . . . Off the Record is Mr. Pearlstine’s effort to defend his choice. This is no easy trick. Media bigs are not a very sympathetic class to begin with. And despite...
- GenresJournalismNonfiction
304 pages, Hardcover
First published June 26, 2007
4 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 27, 2009
Among other things, Pearlstine opines about Patrick Fitzgerald and the CIA leak investigation. The book is most notable for the email exchange between Patrick Fitzgerald and Matthew Cooper's lawyer about Cooper's nudity.
February 28, 2010
This was really hard to get through. I couldn't finish it. It was two years ago, but it was pretty dry.
November 29, 2011
“Our case developed against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s war on the press. The administration has produced video news releases that masquerade as stories, has paid columnists to spout the party line, and has questioned the press’s check-and-balance function in society.” (xiv) “Although my decision to hand over Matt Cooper’s notes, thus revealing his confidential sources, has divided reporters, editors, lawyers, legislators, and the public, it is, nonetheless, my hope that the decision will help pave the way for new laws, standards, and guidelines that will improve and protect journalism and that will restore the public’s faith in the press.” (xvi) [Clark Hoyt – former chief of Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau] “Jack Shafer, Slate’s media columnist, has pointed out that it is difficult for reporters to break this habit because “the surplus of journalist and the relative scarcity of knowledgeable sources allow the sources to pick the rules of engagement. If a reporter insists that a source put the information on the record, the source can always say, ‘Screw you,’ and shop it to a publication that will agree to anonymity. If what the source has to say is true and newsworthy, he’ll find a market.” (5) “The CIA attached little credence to the British report, assuming it was based on Martino’s documents, which it knew to be fake. Members of Bush’s National Security Council, nonetheless, continued to assert that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium to rebuild their nuclear capabilities.” (11) [Floyd Abrams – attorney] [Branzburg v. Hayes] “On July 20, 2004, Hogan held that Branzburg required him to rule that society’s interest in law enforcement outweighed a reporter’s need to protect confidential sources, and that journalists, like all other citizens, were compelled to testify before a grand jury.” (56) [Sulzberger and Judith Miller appearance on NBC’s Today show on October 8, 2004] “Thomas Carlyle, writing in 1841, quoted Edmund Burke saying that there were three estates in Parliament (presumably the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons), “but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all.” (77) “The longest sentence was served by Vanessa Leggett, a book researcher, who served 168 days after refusing to name her sources to a federal grand jury investigating a murder.” (79) [The Pentagon Papers] [Max Frankel’s 18 page affidavit re: Pentagon Papers] “I shared Justice Potter Stewart’s view that it (Watergate) showed “the established American press” performing “precisely the function it was intended to perform by those who wrote the First Amendment of our Constitution.” (86) [Mark Felt – was Deep Throat] “What did begin to bother me was a more philosophical and less pragmatic question. How, I asked, could we, as journalists, criticize others who ignored the courts if we did so ourselves.” (98) [Youngstown v. Sawyer] “Justice Potter Stewart, in an oft-quoted law review article, wrote in 1975 that the press was designed to operate as a “Fourth Estate,” able to check the excesses and abuses of the Congress, the executive branch, and the courts themselves.” (100) “Occam’s razor is an ancient piece of logic that holds one should embrace the simpler course of action when evaluating two equally valid alternatives. It was a maxim I would have to overcome as I moved toward a decision.” (100) “Judge Hogan insisted, “It is Miss Miller’s decision” to refuse to testify. “She has the keys to her release within herself.” He added, “We are not above the law. Miss Miller feels otherwise. She has claimed the prerogative of deciding for herself what information the grand jury is entitled to hear,” and he noted that her “publisher now backs her up in that regard in a criminal investigation.” (123) “We think that turning over the subpoenaed records – after exhausting all possible legal remedies – will go a long way to dispelling the perception that journalists feel they are entitled to special treatment not accorded to ordinary citizens.” (137) “Steve Chapman, a Chicago Tribune columnist, wrote, “The editor-in-chief of Time Inc. made news the other day by offering to do what most of us take for granted: Obey the law. It’s about time.” (139) “Sitting on the podium with Rove, I was reminded of his ability to take in massive amounts of information – his ability to read and respond to hundreds of messages a day is legendary – and his even greater ability to remember it.” (186) [Espionage Act of 1950] [“The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information” – Columbia Law Review 1973] [The Moynihan Commission] “Without Borders publishes an annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index. In 2006 the United States ranked 53rd out of 168 countries, embarrassingly behind Bosnia, Namibia, and the Dominican Republic. Without relief from continued assaults on the press, we shall fall further toward Russia (138) and last-place North Korea (168).” (251)
December 7, 2012
Norman Pearlstine was until 2005 editor-in-chief of Time, Inc., the entire stable of Time's magazines, from Time itself through Fortune, Sports Illustrated and many others on to People (which Pearlstine says often does the best job in handling sources) and more.
As editor-in-chief at that time, he had the ultimate call on how to handle special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's subpoena of both Time writer Matt Cooper and Time, Inc., followed by Judge Thomas Hogan's civil contempt finding when Time, Inc. and Cooper were initially recalcitrant.
First, Pearlstine knows his editorial chops. Before moving to the Time stable, he was managing editor of the Wall Street Journal. And, he knows his legal issues, too, having obtained a law degree.
As such, he carefully nuanced his company's response to various steps in the legal process before the Supreme Court finally refused to hear the appeal from the appellate court level.
At that point, he decided his company and Cooper had to obey the subpoena, even if he didn't totally like it. Immediately, journalistic critics from inside the field descended like locusts, calling Pearlstine a sellout to the TimeWarner board of directors, shareholders, etc. That was in spite of the fact that, when countered what they would do in a similar situation themselves, most the critics either refused to respond or said they would have done what he did.
Pearlstine in large part faults reporters and journalistic entities, especially those inside the Beltway, for bringing this problem on themselves. While he doesn't hit it as hard as he could have, he picks up on the issue of journalists running with the Fourth Estate idea to consider themselves stars, and ultimate becoming a quasi-political part of the problem.
Beyond that, he notes many journalists are sloppy about granting confidentiality too freely and too quickly, not discussing carefully, and relatively early in the sourcing progress, what level of attributional confidentiality the source wants and the reporter is willing to give, and not distinguishing between confidential sources, and true, reporter subpoena-resisting anonymous sources. (Pearlstine found, independently of Karl Rove's lawyer saying he had never asked for anonymity, that Rove was indeed not an anonymous source, and that Matt Cooper was guilty of some of the errors laid out above.)
Short of a SCOTUS revisiting of Branzburg (which, given the current Court, could be disastrous), Pearlstine says the need for a federal shield law is paramount. He discusses various attempts that have recently been put through Congress, and the hostility of the Bush Administration to even a mild, loophole-filled version.
Beyond that, Pearlstine is refreshing for his challenge to his own, and my own, profession. He clearly states that a shield law should not be absolute, that reporter-source sourcing agreements are a contract of sorts, that the ultimate call on changing their terms belongs to sources and not reporters, and that many reporters, above all investigative reporters, need to be on a tighter editorial leash, citing former New York Times reporter Judith Miller as Exhibit No. 1.
In short, if you want a great look at how today's Beltway journalism operates, followed by a prescription for how it should operate, this book is a winner.
As editor-in-chief at that time, he had the ultimate call on how to handle special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's subpoena of both Time writer Matt Cooper and Time, Inc., followed by Judge Thomas Hogan's civil contempt finding when Time, Inc. and Cooper were initially recalcitrant.
First, Pearlstine knows his editorial chops. Before moving to the Time stable, he was managing editor of the Wall Street Journal. And, he knows his legal issues, too, having obtained a law degree.
As such, he carefully nuanced his company's response to various steps in the legal process before the Supreme Court finally refused to hear the appeal from the appellate court level.
At that point, he decided his company and Cooper had to obey the subpoena, even if he didn't totally like it. Immediately, journalistic critics from inside the field descended like locusts, calling Pearlstine a sellout to the TimeWarner board of directors, shareholders, etc. That was in spite of the fact that, when countered what they would do in a similar situation themselves, most the critics either refused to respond or said they would have done what he did.
Pearlstine in large part faults reporters and journalistic entities, especially those inside the Beltway, for bringing this problem on themselves. While he doesn't hit it as hard as he could have, he picks up on the issue of journalists running with the Fourth Estate idea to consider themselves stars, and ultimate becoming a quasi-political part of the problem.
Beyond that, he notes many journalists are sloppy about granting confidentiality too freely and too quickly, not discussing carefully, and relatively early in the sourcing progress, what level of attributional confidentiality the source wants and the reporter is willing to give, and not distinguishing between confidential sources, and true, reporter subpoena-resisting anonymous sources. (Pearlstine found, independently of Karl Rove's lawyer saying he had never asked for anonymity, that Rove was indeed not an anonymous source, and that Matt Cooper was guilty of some of the errors laid out above.)
Short of a SCOTUS revisiting of Branzburg (which, given the current Court, could be disastrous), Pearlstine says the need for a federal shield law is paramount. He discusses various attempts that have recently been put through Congress, and the hostility of the Bush Administration to even a mild, loophole-filled version.
Beyond that, Pearlstine is refreshing for his challenge to his own, and my own, profession. He clearly states that a shield law should not be absolute, that reporter-source sourcing agreements are a contract of sorts, that the ultimate call on changing their terms belongs to sources and not reporters, and that many reporters, above all investigative reporters, need to be on a tighter editorial leash, citing former New York Times reporter Judith Miller as Exhibit No. 1.
In short, if you want a great look at how today's Beltway journalism operates, followed by a prescription for how it should operate, this book is a winner.
April 27, 2010
First of all, Sorry Mr. Pearlstine. Bought this book for $1 at Dollar Tree, so you'll probably not see much of anything from the sale. But I can give a positive review:
In Off the Record, Norman Pearlstine makes a passionate yet reasoned plea for a change on how the government, press, and readers regard anonymous, confidential and off the record sources used in investigative journalism.
For the government, he cautions against insisting everything said be "on background" and that nearly every document be classified as secret.
For the press, he urges education on what these terms mean, getting away from the assumption that talks with government officials start off on background, and settling with sources - and editors - the ground rules for confidentiality, background and such so that everyone going into the argument knows what is expected and what the terms mean. He feels these terms are thrown around loosely and recklessly by the press and government, and thus have lost a lot of their meaning.
He also urges the press to use confidential and background sources rarely, and off the record sources not at all, in order to help rebuild trust among readers.
For readers, I think he's urging patience. The press, he acknowledges, has a lot to fix -- the words hidebound and stiffnecked were invented to describe the press, in my opinion -- so it's going to take time to fix things.
As a washed-up shell of a lazy journalist myself, I have to agree with Pearlstine. Part of the trouble lies in the fact that the pros in the business just assume that folks coming in new already know this stuff, while j-schools, for the most part, send new people into the field assuming they'll learn the ropes on the job. There's a learning/teaching vacuum among journalists that often doesn't get filled in until Robert Preston comes in a-singin' about trouble, folks, right here in River City.
The book is also a good introduction to First Amendment law, and helped me hark back to the media law class I took at the University of Idaho.
In Off the Record, Norman Pearlstine makes a passionate yet reasoned plea for a change on how the government, press, and readers regard anonymous, confidential and off the record sources used in investigative journalism.
For the government, he cautions against insisting everything said be "on background" and that nearly every document be classified as secret.
For the press, he urges education on what these terms mean, getting away from the assumption that talks with government officials start off on background, and settling with sources - and editors - the ground rules for confidentiality, background and such so that everyone going into the argument knows what is expected and what the terms mean. He feels these terms are thrown around loosely and recklessly by the press and government, and thus have lost a lot of their meaning.
He also urges the press to use confidential and background sources rarely, and off the record sources not at all, in order to help rebuild trust among readers.
For readers, I think he's urging patience. The press, he acknowledges, has a lot to fix -- the words hidebound and stiffnecked were invented to describe the press, in my opinion -- so it's going to take time to fix things.
As a washed-up shell of a lazy journalist myself, I have to agree with Pearlstine. Part of the trouble lies in the fact that the pros in the business just assume that folks coming in new already know this stuff, while j-schools, for the most part, send new people into the field assuming they'll learn the ropes on the job. There's a learning/teaching vacuum among journalists that often doesn't get filled in until Robert Preston comes in a-singin' about trouble, folks, right here in River City.
The book is also a good introduction to First Amendment law, and helped me hark back to the media law class I took at the University of Idaho.
December 16, 2007
For a lawyer and journalist and editor, Norm churns out a pretty sludgelike product covering all those bases.
The author photo chills me. He and Steve Forbes could form The Duo of Unnatural Creepy Smiling.
The author photo chills me. He and Steve Forbes could form The Duo of Unnatural Creepy Smiling.
July 2, 2011
Much more interesting and enlightening than I expected. This well-placed journalist offers educational insight into the intricacies of dealing with sources.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews