Posted by Kathryn Hunt on April 3, 2008, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Re: A couple of articles on our kickoff keynote speaker, Samantha Power"
64.229.209.98
I get the feeling there's no such thing as "off the record" anymore, and it's really hard to tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think it might be bad. I don't necessarily want to think that my political leaders say one thing in public and another in private (on some level that looks duplicitous), but on another, well, I want them to be able to keep their beliefs and their political actions separate.
For example - I wouldn't want politician "Q" to say, "Of course I think that everyone should have equal rights" in public, but have the ability to say, in private, that she actually believes that members of a certain minority shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices. But I also value a politician's right (and ability) to keep their beliefs and their politics separate, as when a local politician said that although, as a believing Muslim, she does not agree with gay marriage, if her party supported it she would stand with the party.
I'm not sure where, on that scale, the line ought to fall for "off the record" - but when Ms. Power said she was "off the record" and was then quoted, it seemed like a violation of some kind of journalistic trust or other.
And, on another note, how come Clinton's advisor can say that Barack Obama wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he wasn't black, and not get so much as a whiff of reprisal, but one of Obama's advisors can't say that Clinton 'is a monster who'll do anything to win'?
| 174 |
|
Message Thread:
|
