Last evening I sent a series of questions via Twitter to the 4 authors bylined on the Herman Cain “sexual harassment story.” And I did so because it occurred to me that one component of this story that no one seems to be asking about is what, exactly, did the Politico reporters know of any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements by which either/both Herman Cain and the two women cited anonymously in the Politico story were bound. So far, I haven’t received a single response.
Perhaps there’s a reason for that. As a correspondent wrote me last night, what Politico knew and when they knew it wouldn’t really change the fact of the putative story: Herman Cain was accused on two occasions of some form of harassment in the work place — on one such occasion, according to the Politico story, the proximate cause for the sexual harassment complaint being a gesture that wasn’t really sexual to begin with. And so my interlocutor wondered why it would matter what information the reporters had at their disposal? — a stance quite possibly being adopted by the reporters themselves, which might explain their silence.
Well, that, and I’m a nobody, so what business do I have bugging them with my little questions, anyway?
But here’s why I think the questions I asked matter: if the Politico reporters knew Herman Cain was unable to comment on the cases — and it’s possible, in some cases, that even acknowledging the existence of a confidentiality agreement is a violation of that agreement — should they have disclosed that knowledge in the story?
This is not an idle question. Shortly after the story was published, some of the reporters started appearing on cable news shows, refusing to answer questions about any of the specifics of the complaints, and — and this bit is crucial — pointing the media toward Cain, suggesting that they approach him about the specifics.
And now, the media campaign aimed at Cain is fixated less on the “crime” — even CNN ran a story acknowledging that such claims and settlements are oftentimes just the cost of doing business (Kurt Schlichter follows that up with a good New York Post column today detailing how these suits work) — and more on a supposed concern over Herman Cain’s “evolving story.” The cover-up, you see, is worse than the crime — and Cain’s responses, we’re told, have raised all sort of questions about his veracity.
The excuse the reporters gave for the thinness of the details they provided in their initial story was that they were concerned to protect the privacy of the women whose claims they’d anonymously referenced. Less concerned were they about Herman Cain’s reputation and good name and how this story may affect it — not surprising, really, given that Politico reporters were involved in at least one iteration of Journolist (essentially, a cabal of liberal-left reporters who colluded together behind the scenes to determine the news cycle and to aid progressive causes and candidates, while hoping to delegitimate Republicans, conservatives, and the TEA Party). But surprising or not, the questions I’m hoping to raise are still valid ones and redound to Politico’s standard for professional ethics.
If the worry among the chattering classes is now focused on Herman Cain’s various awkward attempts to answer the questions the Politico story helped to raise — specifically, how the “evolution” of Cain’s answers in various interviews are affecting public perception and creating a cloud of suspicion over both his campaign and his character — it becomes important to know just how much of what has become the story was driven by the machinations of the Politico reporters themselves.
That is to say, if the reporters who worked on this story were aware in advance of publication that Herman Cain was constrained by a confidentiality agreement from answering the charges Politico was levying against him (and I’m quite sure they’ll respond by saying they were merely “reporting” earlier charges, not levying any charges against Mr Cain, but we all know better), should they not have disclosed this in the story itself — particularly if they were going to follow up the story’s publication by doing media appearances in which they explicitly told other members of the media to press Mr Cain for the specifics?
Or, to put it another way, how do the Politico reporters square their suggestion that Mr Cain be responsible for providing the specifics to a story they published, with their own knowledge of a confidentiality agreement that they knew would prevent Mr Cain from speaking.
Already, the new wrinkle to this story is that Cain may have violated the confidentiality agreement merely by attempting to answer questions from reporters demanding the specifics Politico reporters asserted it was incumbent upon Mr Cain to provide. In fact, Politico itself is now reporting, using one of the women’s attorneys as their proxy, that Cain broke his confidentiality agreement — even as the WaPo is complaining that Cain won’t answer questions.
So the question is, how much of what we’re now seeing play out is a result of Politico’s attempts to drive Cain into having to give answers to questions they’d raised — but knew he wasn’t legally permitted to answer? That is, how much of this story is a direct result of Politico’s cynical attempt to box Cain in?
Why would Politico reporters tell members of the media to approach Herman Cain for the specifics without disclosing that Cain was legally prevented from any such disclosures — including, possibly, the disclosure of any such legal agreement? Did they know of such an agreement and fail to alert readers and the media that Cain’s various “deflections” were not necessarily a component of any guilt, but rather a legal necessity about which these “reporters” were already aware?
Because if so, it is fair to conclude that the story itself — coupled with the media appearances immediately following it by Politico reporters pointing reporters to Cain for a detailing of any specifics — was designed as a Catch-22 for the candidate: to defend himself, he’d have to break his confidentiality agreement; conversely, to maintain his confidentiality agreement would be to allow the anonymously-sourced story, left intentionally vague by the Politico reporters, to hover over his campaign unanswered for the duration.
It matters what the Politico reporters knew of a possible confidentiality agreement and when they knew it. Too, it matters what they knew of any dollar amounts from the settlements they reported on, because specific dollar amounts would have meant that experts in such settlements could have opined on what the settlement figures suggest both about how the complaints were handled internally, and about how common such settlements are in a generic sense in instances of harassment claims. Failure to disclose their knowledge of Cain’s legal conundrum — while pushing other media members to press advantage from that conundrum they were privy to but never disclosed — turns the reporters themselves into a very integral part of the story as it has developed. Failure to disclose settlement amounts, if they knew of them, is a bit of omission bias that they must have known could have she additional light on the nature of the claims upon which they’d chosen to report.
So let me ask directly, once again, the following questions of the 4 Politico reporters: 1) Did you know of a confidentiality agreement when you published your initial story? 2) Did you know Mr Cain would be unable to comment on the particulars you left out? 3) Did you know of the actual settlement numbers when you went to press? 4) Did you ever actually speak to either of the women for the piece?
If we allow these questions to go unanswered, the very kind of journalism that is driving this story’s trajectory — itself hardly new — will be practiced upon conservative candidates again and again and again.
Most disappointing of all, at least to me, has been watching “conservatives” help Politico along, so desperate are they to appear fair, some of them never even recognizing how complicit they are in their own political impotence.
****
note: if you think these questions worthwhile, I ask that you link this post, or post links to this post on message boards and throughout social network sites. As I mentioned in the opening, so far I haven’t gotten a single response from any of the reporters involved. And I won’t, unless they are pressured to answer.
****
update: So I’m clear here, Cain’s guilt or innocence is not what’s important with respect to any critique of the reporting involved. Plenty of intrigue concerning the question of Cain’s behavior is already taking root without my piling on fertilizer.
It really took four investigative reporters to “uncover” this? Really?
Four reporters means that the inevitable
liesreporting errors can be shrugged off as “miscommunications” between the authors.– And you won’t get a single response. This scam is as old as the hills. It’s the same old “When did you stop beating your wife” crap, and it will always happen until someone in the press gets their asses sued off for defamation of character when people demand some serious laws are written and enforced in this area.
– As long as the press gets a free pass to do and say anything they want about others under the guise of “freedom of the press”, and just “reporting the news” it will never stop, because aside from being useful for destroying your political enemies, it sells papers.
– There’s yet another reason you won’t get any answers. There is every possibility that both Politico and their source(s) already broke the law on confidentiality.
I’ve often found it odd that people actually read Politico as though it were a news organization. Anyone else remember that piece they ran in 2008, where it was stated that never had such an inexperienced candidate ever been chosen for vice-president (they were speaking of Palin here, let’s leave aside for a moment who was actually running in the first chair on the Dem ticket)?
Byline was just some guys who happened to be dis-interested historians. Turns out, these college professors were all members of some group “Historians for Obama” Yeah, awesome news org there.
Never read them again…
I’ve e-mailed this link to Limbaugh. Hope he picks it up, ’cause the questions are pertinent as all get out.
Now the line is that Cain is refusing to answer questions.
#5, Ditto about 20 minutes ago.
Better to mail it to Levin. He’s a lawyer, so maybe he has some insight.
Cain gets advice from Lehane, the author of the “communication stream of conspiracy commerce” 332 page memo out of the Clinton White House in 1995.
Done.
Levin seems to be on the same page as you are.
More.
Yeah, my questions won’t get any traction. Too bad. I think it raises interesting questions about how reporters operate and how they make themselves part of the story while disguising the role they play.
I think your questions and Glenn’s complement each other, myself.
Most disappointing of all, at least to me, has been watching “conservatives” help Politico along, so desperate are they to appear fair, some of them never even recognizing how complicit they are in their own political impotence.
There is also an element of having Politico and the left do their dirty work for them. Hey, Romney and Perry* may not have started the avalanche, but they see no reason to help Herman Cain get out of the way.
* Perry may want a little payback for Cain’s comment on the rock at Perry’s leased ranch.
Whether Perry has a lingering desire for payback isn’t known Joe, and in fact doesn’t appear to be the case. His supporters, however, are another matter.
1. They are not investigative reporters, that much is a simple fact.
Excellent questions, JG.
Let me help you, since I do (something like) this for a living. The professionally fair–and traditional, I might add–thing for any reporter to have done would been to have noted that Cain’s representatives had been reached for comment but declined to respond, citing a wide-ranging confidentiality agreement.
That’s why whomever sprung this had more than politics on their mind since Cain–who likely will face sanction for discussing this, of some sort anyhow–was caught between a rock (not responding and looking guilty as hell) and a hard place (breaking the deal.)
Any fair minded editor would have prevented the story from running in the form it did. “Something (probably) happened” as a story arc is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous was, as I noted yesterday, the Politico reporter’s assertion that they aren’t going to go into any details about the accuser’s.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/02/uh-oh-witness-found-to-cain-incidents/
Hmmm, a possible Perry link and a less likely (but still possible) Romney one.
sdferr, I should clarify Perry and Romney supporters. I do not know either way, but I assume Perry or Romney would not be in on a dirty trick like this. It typically does come from a supporter.
What is telling is how the candidates themselves react to it.
Funny, but my former boss at the NY Sun, Ira Stoll, who was a complete and utter ballbuster on sourcing, just launched this site: http://www.newstransparency.com/about
– One aspect of this whole pile of dung that’s not clear from any of the comments made by anyone is whether or not Cain was actually a “party” to any agreements what-so-ever. The entire thing just may have been handled entirely outside his involvement by the HR people, a situation that was not uncommon during that time frame, and persisted until the law caught up with this scam. The mention in several comments that “it was handled by a phone call and a fax” seems to point in this direction.
Interesting site, Roddy. Will it take off in the popular arena or be more of an insider thing? We’ll see I guess.
@#19,
That was already in my comment from 2 hours ago which Jeff G. linked in his update.
Joe: I already linked that in the update. GeoffB linked a few articles here in the comments earlier. Hadn’t seen the Hot Air thing, though.
Just tweeted the link to Hewitt and his producer and the #hhrs list.
Who schtups the schtuppers? It could become a thing.
Roddy:
That News Transparency site looks interesting, but if it’s like a Wiki, there’s plenty of potential for abuse.
If, Stoll is an honest broker, however, that may make up for it.
this Chris Smith person seems like a consummate douche
“this Chris Smith”? Chris Wilson?
HF, what Chris Smith person? Where’s he mentioned?
Oh, if happy means Chris Wilson I withdraw my question. But RSM’s co-blogger Smitty at The Other McCain is real-named Chris Smith, and I’d hate to see confusion create trouble.
There’s a Congressman one too.
“conservatives” on Twitter more likely to reference what this consultant said than to acknowledge my questions to Politico.
We’ve learned nothing. Or rather, more than ever I’m convinced many of these people are more interested in the game than the cause. That they happen to be our opinion leaders just make this all the more tragic.
Lots of people writing me to tell me that the problem is with the way the Cain campaign handled rapid-response. Not that some media outlet posted a thinly-sourced hit piece that says almost nothing but implies much, mind you. But that Cain wasn’t ready to handle this trashing of his reputation.
They are all readying themselves for their own careers in journalism. I’m disgusted, frankly. But at least my marginalization makes more sense: I’m simply not interested in what interests these people.
Well Cain is truly fucked because “everybody was aware of it”. There you have it. We may as well take judicial notice of it and find him guilty right now.
Who’d a thunk it.
For contrast.
– Drudge: Poll South Carolina: Cain 33%, Romney 23%, Gingrich 15%
– Iowa yawns at allegations
– Keep the attacks coming.
Apparently this confidentiality agreement is SO wide ranging it even includes an associate of Karl Rove’s who never even signed it…
I’m a process person and the processes that interest me are the ones Jeff is bringing up and the process of dissonance that those who are squawking about Cain’s rapid response think they could have handled any better when hit with the Politico journalist just outside the TV studio before the campaign had a chance to exactly what was in the hit piece.
I’ve hit the Tatler pieces and others (Preston, York, Ace) for their willingness to be led by the nose on this mess. And it is a mess by design. Lob a hand grenade with ‘did you do what we can’t tell you we know you did’ at anyone and see how they would respond particularly with the non-disclosure and age of the incident and the non specificity of the charges. Sure they had 10 days to respond… but to what? Cain decided to wait to see what they had and now everyone is demanding that he should have been able to pull a fully formed response to ‘did you do what we can’t tell you we know you did’ and are all pissed that he couldn’t pull it off.
Plus they are complaining about his ‘evolving’ responses to this starting from the moment he was hit just outside the studios before he had even seen the piece without bothering to analyze just what a ‘normal’ person would do once they had an actual charge in front of them (think about what the media are claiming, have more recall as the events are mulled over, contact others to see what they remember, and fill in the blanks as they are filled in) as those who are seeking to relay the truth tend to do.
He’s evolving the story as the events are being pieced back together and giving frank ‘I don’t remembers’ to those he doesn’t remember. The settlement – did he sign it or not? Damned if he answers one way or the other as I doubt he even had a copy of the document and even his lawyer said he hadn’t dug up the papers yet to Greta so Cain says he’s not sure – Heretic!!!. His only fault would be in doing the piecing publicly, and dare I say, transparently. Only politicians ‘craft’ a response fully formed and stick to it. Crafting by its very nature being glossy and packaged and tied neatly with a bow and only glimpses of the truth. And a crafted response to what is usually more fully formed charge lobbed by the media.
Instead these asses who claim to want a fresh face and someone who is outside of politics and not corrupted and not a ‘plastic’ politician are condemning the man for being a man and not a politician. For them it was better had Cain ‘crafted’ a ‘plastic’ response and joined the ranks of the bonafied political class.
Cognitive Dissonance of the Media Lap Dogs. As I told Preston, he’s demanding Cain be an expert shadow boxer in a dimly lit room. And he’s judging the match with instant replay… something he isn’t affording Cain.
politics,
showbiz for the ugly
sport for the clumsy
Forbes:
As for the story itself, Cain campaign officials complain Politico’s piece was an ambush. When Politico’s Martin contacted Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon on late in the day on October 19, Gordon says Martin didn’t supply any details or documents that would allow the campaign to evaluate the claims. There were no names, locations, or exact descriptions of what Cain is alleged to have said or done. Gordon and the campaign say they couldn’t respond because they had no idea what they were responding to. Gordon even begged Harris to send him copies of any documents with the names blacked out. Harris refused.
…
Indeed, no one—the two women, the National Restaurant Association board member that Politico cites as its source, Politico itself, one of the aggrieved women’s attorney Joel Bennett, the National Restaurant Association itself—has supplied any concrete details of alleged harassment.
Washington attorney Joel P. Bennett, who represents one of the two women who claim that Cain mistreated her, doesn’t have a copy of agreements the women signed with the National Restaurant Association. “I haven’t seen a copy of this in 12 years,” he told me, adding that he hopes to get a copy from the National Restaurant Association. His client asked him to stop giving interviews. In the past 24 hours, he said, he had appeared on NBC, CBS, NYT and NPR.
The National Restaurant Association spokesperson, Sue Hensley, said that the association is bound by confidentiality agreements and employee-privacy regulations and cannot release any documents or comment in any way.
The Cain campaign, and even Cain himself, begged the association to at least supply some details, campaign officials say. Citing the confidentiality agreements, the association refused.
So Cain and the public are left boxing against shadows. And Cain is no longer on message. “Let’s just say that we would never do something like this,” Cain says. “It gives politics a bad name.”
Not important, Stephanie. It’s more fun playing amateur journalist than it is to actually hold the lowrent professional journalists to account.
That’s what I learned today.
Actually, Jeff it is important to realize that government and political office’s have been and will continue to be filled with people who hit on women and have affairs. Our government is. Politicians are pretty smarmy.
Not enough people care. So the clean toga crowd get rid of quality people on the right (who are caught) and you end up with the left getting to choose exactly who they want, regardless of their morality.
If Romney thinks he has no skeletons in his closet, never fear, the MBM will insinuate some and let the clean toga people shun him as needed.
Fake but accurate was amateur hour. Any wonder Rather got put out to pasture?
Were I Cain, I would hire Palin as campaign consultant and let her take over from here on out. She runs unconventionally and has the fire power to out media the media and would be a lightening rod herself for the media to go after and leave Cain to talk policy.
The horror, the horror.
“Iowa radio host accuses Herman Cain of ‘inappropriate’ remarks”
Took a look at the twitter buzz and I can’t keep track of this thing anymore.
3rd woman? Some other witness? Some radio host saying something? Perry hired a guy who something or another?
I’m lost.
The buzz saw is at full speed. My apologies to Herman for stating he could have handled this better. Who knew that rainfall was Katrina and the levees were full.
my feeling is I will be happy to vote for Herman Cain whereas I would not be happy to vote for Wall Street Romney
And Perry is looking like a desperate desperate sleazeypoof.
Third woman is anonymous and didn’t file anything, but she thought about it. Which evidently is now newsworthy, if you are the Associated Press. Which, here’s another story: Someone somewhere claims I once acted like a dick. Says he thought about telling me to my face but decided to watch TV, instead.
RUN WITH IT.
Talk show host said Cain’s complimenting a woman is inappropriate and he himself would never do it because he’s one of the good ones and he would never ever never ever ever be so unprofessional. Said talk show host has ties to Politico.
“What if they gave a political scandal… and nobody cared?”
‘Cause I couldn’t care less if Cain were making waitress sandwiches with Chris Dodd back in the day. Or starts doing that tomorrow. I’m still voting for him.
As our electric yellow friend likes to say “it’s all about the spendings”. The gold folks of Iowa would seem to agree.
Thanks, Jeff.
Hmmm, now I’m gonna feel like a cad when I work that “Jeff once considered a dick” rumor on Twitter.
That’s the “good” folks of Iowa. The gold folks are probably all like “RONPAUL!” — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Have you no shame sir? [sniff] At long last, have you no shame at all?
That nigga was looking at me!
We should start a list of things that we’re (fairly) sure Cain hasn’t done.
So far we’ve got hasn’t made a waitress sandwich with Chris Dodd (and probably Teddy K. too), and hasn’t fouled a perfectly good cigar getting his perv on with a slutty intern. We can probably add never exposed himself or used the Arkansas State Police to troll for bimbos.
Pablo,
You may not be too far off. Didn’t the radio guy say Cain said one of his staff sure was pretty? Was the discomfort race based?
Robert Costa says (25:16) the MSM loves this story, will drag it out, has devoted teams to digging into it and so on. (I haven’t listened to the whole Costa conversation — I’m looking for the Ajami conversation — so that’s all I got by happenstance.)
My Twitter feed is filled with very sophisticated people sneering at Herman Cain, who is now “flailing” — and for what? Just because the entire country was told he is a serial sexual harasser with no proof and no names?
God, what a carping little pussy he is. They would have handled it much better, these Tweeters, some of whom summarize news stories on their websites.
Unless you unfollow them: then they’ll squeal like little bitches. But then, that’s some serious shit.
Of course, sdferr. It’s like the Palin thing. They are a mob who has given each other the go ahead, and now they want to see if they can actually either get him out of the race, destroy his family, or– best case — get him to commit suicide.
This is our media culture. If a fucking plague of locust ate every last one of them, no one would give shit. We’d just wake up, clear the bones, and notice the earth smells surprisingly clean.
The remarks of that Idiot Out Wandering Around radio host geoffb linked above tell me more about the host than they do about anything Cain’s alleged to have done.
taking it to baracky?
Link
What the frak is “information and influence” from Da Mayr’s office supposed to mean?
My, that Cain fellow is so unpolished. What we conservatives need, to get back to first principles, is a polished politician who can lie fluently and whose positions are so fence-straddling that no one really knows what s/he stands for.
CONSERVATISM!
and to think it was just a few weeks ago Cap’n Ed was all upset cause of madonna was gonna sing on the tv
let’s have fun “what did perry/romney know and when did perry/romney know it?” see baseless allegations are easy/peazy.
Or was that the Oklahoma guy? At any rate, he allegedly “confided in colleagues” that he found one of the staffers attractive. Which makes him…just like every other red blooded male on Earth.
I think that’s when Rahm is naked and poking you in the chest.
I have a face I make for that. That way there is no verbal evidence.
confidey pervs are the worst
I didn’t stab, kill and bury that rapist guy. It doesn’t matter at all he hasn’t been seen since that day. Nor that I was the last person he was seen with. At all. But fuckin’ pervs better look to who they’re confiding in.
A lot of times this just sounds weird when it isn’t. I think you speak to a colleague by saying something like, “Did you notice that X from legal/marketing/accounting? Man.” The word “confiding” sounds confessional. Like, “That chick had giant boobs. I really want to grab them. It’s consuming me inside, those giant boobs. Think I’ll wait for her in the parking lot tonight.”
this sniffy National Soros Radio bitch has to be read to be believed
oh but it goes on and on – National Soros Radio is gonna beat the black motherfucker until he behaves proper-like
Costa, I just heard on the podcast, says that Cain’s entire campaign group comes out of the Wisconsin Tea Parties (roughly 20:20 on). Didn’t know that.
Heard a black liberal prof on Hannity today said “Cain just likes to entertain the white folk!”
Nope. Nothing racial entering into this.
I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!
Let me guess. It was Dr. Lamont Hill.
Yup
“Cain just likes to entertain the white folk!”
he could be an nfl player.
I must by psychic. Or, it could be he has a proven track record of being a partisan hack who fully believes in the narrative of white people being inherently racist.
BTW, did you catch that video that went around (don’t recall the URL) about how the Frankfurt School is basically the source of all those “Studies” majors?
In a related note, the professor in question is a professor of Black Studies, as well as another field I cannot recall.
It’s interesting to trace the history of academic sorting of reality (or what used to be called nature) into fields, as theoretical edifices wax and wane. Mostly interesting, that is, for the humorous bullshit of it all.
If anyone has this, please link. That’s wild.
ha! found at Insty, it’s palindrome day. Where’s buttons?
11/02/2011
buttons!
Links and congruences
Paul Ryan – Jack Kemp — Jack Kemp – Herman Cain
Here’s a link to a bad copy of the video about the Frankfurt School. What you want to search on is The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness. The whole PC thing, multiculturalism, critical theory, and the like, originated with them.
Thanks. Problem with the link though.
eff the frankfurter. wienies the lot
I Am America
Wonderbra.
Speaking of unpolished, has anyone noticed that when Obama was campaigning, his voice was described as a resonant baritone (which I always thought wasn’t so much resonant as adenoidal, not that there’s anything wrong with that) but now that he’s not getting his way in absolutely everything his voice is hanging out in the upper registers?
I wonder what would cause him to go soprano more quickly: being unseated, or having to face another four years of Congressional recalcitrance?
[…] And this points back to the real scandal this week, as expressed in a question by Jeff Goldstein at the Protein Wisdom blog: "What did Politico know and when did they know it?" […]
That’s good stuff R.S. McCain wrote right there ^. The linked Pruden editorial isn’t bad either.
And William Jacobson’s re-write of the Pruden editorial is good too, though sadder.
[…] What Did Politico Know, And When Did They Know It? “Last evening I sent a series of questions via Twitter to the 4 authors bylined on the Herman […]
Instalanche! About damn time.
[…] use the occasion of a rank political hit job to attack one of their own rather than the media culture that allows for and promotes such obvious partisan attacks, has been […]
[…] Mr. Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has some questions that need answering: So let me ask directly, once again, the following questions […]