POLITICO HAS ADMITTED IN ñ TO MAKING A
MISTAKE IN SENDING THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY AN
ENTIRE ARTICLE THAT ONE OF ITS REPORTERS HAD WRITTEN, HOWEVER
IT DOES SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY DID THAT AND THEY SHOULDN'T
HAVE, SENDING THE ARTICLE TO THE DNC DID NOT HAVE ANY
RAMIFICATIONS OR DID NOT LEAD TO ANY CHANGES IN THE ARTICLE.
I SHOULD NOTE THAT THE ARTICLE WAS VERY CRITICAL OF HILLARY
CLINTON AND HER FUNDRAISING EFFORTS; HOWEVER, THE WRITER
WANTED TO SEND IT TO THE DNC TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE
ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING OF THE DNC WANTED TO CHIME IN ON.
THAT ME GIVE YOU THE DETAILS ON THAT.
IN AN APRIL 29 EMAIL, DNC NATIONAL PRESS SECRETARY SHARED
DETAILED QUESTIONS WITH OTHERS WORKING TO CHORDATE IN RESPONSE
TO WHAT WOULD BE AN UNFLATTERING STORY ABOUT FUNDRAISING EFFORTS.
SO APPARENTLY, WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO ñ WHAT THEY ARE CLAIMING
THEY DID WAS, THEY WANTED TO SEND THE ADVANCED COPY, GIVE THE
DNC AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE
RESPONSE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THE ARTICLE.
THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
ARTICLE, AND EVEN A LAYER CLAIMING THEY SHOULD NOT
HAVE SENT THE FULL PIECE TO THE DNC, IT IS STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURE TO GET A COMMENT FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
THIS IS A NUANCED STORY.
NUMBER ONE, IT IS SOMETIMES NORMAL ñ
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I GET INTERVIEWED, SOMETIMES THE
PERSON WHO INTERVIEWS ME WILL SEND ME BACK MY QUOTES
BECAUSE I DID IT OVER THE PHONE AND SAY, ARE THESE ACCURATE?
THEY DON'T SEND THE ARTICLE, THEY SEND ME THE QUOTES.
I THINK THAT'S GOOD JOURNALISM BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO
MISQUOTE A PERSON AND YOU ARE MAKING SURE.
AND I SAY YES THOSE ARE ACCURATE OR VERY RARELY I WILL SAY,
NO I ACTUALLY SAID THIS WORD AND NOT THAT WORD.
GOOD, YOU GOT IT MORE RIGHT.
IT'S NOT ME CHANGING THE STORY AT ALL, AND I TRIED TO THEY
WOULDN'T LET ME.
IN THIS CASE THOUGH, THEY SENT THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
WHEN YOU SEND THE WHOLE ARTICLE, THAT'S BASICALLY LIKE, ANY PART
OF THIS THAT YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, DISAGREE ON?
TWO PARTS COME OUT OF THAT, MORE NUANCED.
NUMBER ONE, THE ARTICLE WAS AGAINST THE HILLARY CLINTON
TEAM AND THEY SENT IT TO THE HILLARY CLINTON TEAM.
THIS WAS ABOUT THE MONEY-LAUNDERING THEY DID
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHERE HILLARY CLINTON DONORS
WOULD GIVE TO THE DNC AND THE STATE PARTIES, AND THEN HE
WOULD FUNNEL BACK INTO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.
AND THEY WOULD SAY, OH WE GAVE TO THE STATE PARTIES, AREN'T
WE SO GREAT?
AND POLITICO PROVED IN THAT ARTICLE THAT ONLY ONE PERCENT OF
THE MONEY STAYED AT THE STATE PARTIES.
THE CLINTON CAMP HAD THE ARTICLE AHEAD OF TIME AND THEY
COULD NOT DISPUTED, THEY HAD NOTHING TO DISPUTE, SO THEY
SAID OKAY AND THEY RAN A STORY AS IT IS.
SO THAT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE.
FINALLY, WHY DID HE DO IT?
HE WROTE A SCATHING ARTICLE THAT WAS ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD
ARTICLE, SO WHY DID HE BOTHER SENDING IT TO HILLARY CLINTON?
BECAUSE HE STILL NEEDS ACCESS.
THAT'S HIM SAYING, YES I'M KICKING YOUR ASS WITH THIS
ARTICLE, BUT DON'T WORRY, I'M STILL A GOOD GUY, YOU CAN ALSO
PLANT STORIES WITH ME AND I'M GOING TO BE SUPER FAIR TO YOU,
SO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T CUT OFF MY ACCESS EVEN THOUGH I'M
WRITING THIS TOUGH ARTICLE ABOUT YOU.
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT'S SPECULATION.
VIDEO BUFFERING ñ
LET ME GIVE THE MOST GENEROUS READING OF THAT, THAT WAS
HIM PLAYING CHESS.
I'LL MAKE THEM THINK I'M ON BOARD WITH THEM, THIS
ARTICLE IS GOING TO CUT THEM OFF AT THE KNEES, BUT STILL
THEY'RE GOING TO THINK I'M A GOOD GUY.
MEANWHILE, I'M BEATING THEIR HEAD IN.
MAYBE.
THAT'S THE MOST GENEROUS READING.
YOURS IS PROBABLY THE MOST LIKELY, BUT CERTAINLY THAT
IS WHAT HE IS GOING TO SAY.
OR, ON THE OTHER HAND IT LETS YOU DO ACTUAL JOURNALISM
AND SHOW THEY WERE DOING SOME THING WRONG, BUT IT GIVES
THEM A CHANCE TO BE WARNED THAT THE TOPIC IS COMING OUT SO
MAYBE THEY HAVE A DAY OR TWO TO GET ADAMANT IN THE NEWS AND
START TALKING ABOUT THEIR FUNDRAISING, OR WHATEVER.
ARE YOU GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PANTS ON FIRE AND ALL
THAT STUFF?
GO AHEAD.
THAT WAS POLITIFACT RIGHT?
POLITIFACT HAD ALREADY ACCUSED
THAT THE MONEY HILLARY WAS RAISING, HALF OF THAT GOES TO
THE DOWN TICKET PEOPLE AND THIS ARTICLE PROVED THAT ONE
PERCENT WAS GOING TO THEM.
AND THEN POLITIFACT AT FIRST SAID IT WAS HALF TRUE.
IT'S COMPLETELY ñ
THEY SAID IT WAS MOSTLY TRUE.
AFTER THE ARTICLE VISIT WAS MOSTLY TRUE.
AFTER THE ARTICLE IT WAS ONLY 1% TO.
THEY PROVED IT AND THE HILLARY THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN DENY IT.
ISN'T THAT 99% NOT TRUE?
TO BE FAIR, LAST WEEK ON MELANIA TRUMPS LEDGER IS HIM,
ACCUSATIONS THAT SHE PLAGIARIZED IT WAS MOSTLY TRUE.
IT'S TOTALLY FALSE BUT THEY ARE AFRAID TO CALL IT OUT
FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, AGAINST THE POWERFUL.
SOMETIMES IT'S HARD, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S NOT.
BY THE WAY, IF YOU ARE POWERLESS THEN IT'S EASY
FOR THEM TO CALL YOU OUT.
IT'S LIKE, BERNIE SANDERS AND I THINK HE'S NEVER GOING TO
GET INTO POWER, EASIER TO SAY, NO THAT WASN'T RIGHT.
ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN'T GET MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY DO THAT BECAUSE
SANDERS DIDN'T LIE.
FINALLY, CONCENTRATE ON TWO THINGS HERE.
KEN VOGEL WROTE A REALLY GOOD ARTICLE, BE FAIR TO HIM, IT WAS.
AND SECOND, UNDERSTAND HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED, EVEN IN THE BEST
DISTANT ñ BEST CASE SCENARIO WHERE THEY WRITE A GREAT
ARTICLE, THEY STILL WANT TO PLAY BALL ENOUGH TO KEEP
RELATIONSHIPS GOOD ENOUGH TO GET THE NEXT STORY, TO GET ACCESS.
MY BEST GUESS IS, THAT'S VOGEL GOING I'M NOT BURNING A BRIDGE
HERE, I DID ALL I COULD TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ON THIS AND TO
RESPOND TO THIS, SO REMEMBER, STILL A TEAM PLAYER, WE'RE
STILL COOL.