Newsweek has had posted on its website a 7-part series of what REALLY was going on during the primaries and then the campaign. Apparently reporters had major access to the candidates on the condition things were not reported until after Nov. 4
This is the series -- titledSecrets of the Campaign-- that talks about computer hacking (maybe by the Chinese or Russians) of both Obama's and McCain's campaign and also many tidbits about Palin. It also tells of the infighting in the Clinton campaign and then in the McCain campaign. And of course that same info reported by Diarist Wade Hatler about the spike in death threats to Obama, thanks to Palin's rhetoric.
It is instant Teddy White in the net age -- you don't wait for the book to come out -- or even the magazine It raises a broad question: should reporters be keeping this kind of stuff off the record?
(If someone has already written about this in full, I did not find it.)
Newsweek's 7-part series was up practically instantly. Only as we read other versions from other reporters will we know whether it was up to Teddy White's standards.
As a former reporter myself, I understand that to get the kind of access to a campaign/candidate that was necessary, the reporters had to agree everything was OFF THE RECORD until after the election.
But this troubles me. Jon Stewart (once again) hit the nail on the head when, referencing a Fox Post-Election Report that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. Aren't some of these things that the public is entititled to know BEFORE it votes?
I am less concerned about the anecdotal things such as coming to the door in a towel. But real things... Computers were hacked by perhaps the Chinese or Russians, Palin knows even less than we thought, etc.
Remember at the start of the Iraq war all the embedded reporters? Of course it was appropriate for them not to give away military secrets, but we now know how much they kept from the public.