Fowler and Clinton

Mayhill Fowler of Huffington Post released this article, and a scandal began. The story is summed up in the full audio. Tod Purdam from Vanity Fair released a "hackjob" of an article, which pained Clinton pretty poorly. In an effort to catch Clinton off-script, Fowler did two things, during the interview, that were journalistically touchy. She asked Clinton a question without identifying herself as a journalist (though she was apparently obviously holding a recording device). For context, she was in a rope line, a public place where Clinton was intended to shake hands, make short conversation etc.  Secondly, she asked him a very leading qustion, the intent must have been to elicit the exact kind of incriminating response that she got. The question was, "what did you think of that hackjob" referring to Purdam's article, which was highly critical of Clinton.

Her article explaining the one question interview was misleading. Take a look at the first paragraph of her article. It misrepresents the nature of the leading question.  She was acting questionably when she did two things unorthodoxically. Perhaps it would have been alright if she asked the leading question after identifying herself.  Perhaps she could have gotten away with remaining unidentified as a reporter, but asked a less leading question. Doing these two things at the same time was questionable. My opinion is that this article tries to make it seem like she caught Clinton off script, an insight into his real character. I don't think this is accurate. Clinton was very much on script. In a rope line, he is campaigning. Every comment, every handshake is intended on a vote. If one crazy in the line says something outlandish, he might not disagree simply for the sake of being personable.  This is essentially what happened with Fowler, she asked a leading question and it inevitably affected his answer.  The worst part of this scandal, and Fowler's journalism is that this doesn't come across in her feature. It's completely camouflaged.

I'm all in favor of exposing two-faced political hypocrisy, rope-line or no.  But Fowler could have and should have avoided breaking two journalistic norms at one.  If she didn't do that, she should have at least put the whole thing in context, something her article fails to do.