Off the Record: The Press, the Government, and the War over Anonymous Sources (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "As a young reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Detroit bureau, I often wrote the weekly story about current levels of domestic auto-plant production..." (more)
Key Phrases: federal shield law, grand jury secrecy, confidential sources, Time Inc, First Amendment, White House (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The author endured a firestorm of criticism from fellow journalists when, as editor-in-chief of Time Inc., he turned over Time reporter Matt Cooper's notes on confidential sources in the Valerie Plame scandal to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In this defensive apologia, he explains his reasons for defying what he allows is a hoary journalistic tradition of going to jail to protect sources. Pearlstine, who holds a law degree, cites a high-minded conviction that journalists aren't above the law, but admits that the tipping point in his decision was his formulation of a hairsplitting legalistic distinction between confidential sources, who should be protected, and mere deep-background anonymous sources, who can be given up to the grand jury. Along the way, he discusses at length the critics who accused him of putting Time-Warner's profits above journalistic principle as well as New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who went to jail to protect her Plame sources (before finally testifying). He also raises some cogent points about journalists' abuses of anonymous sourcing conventions. Readers already persuaded of Pearlstine's pusillanimity may find his lawyerly self-justifications less than convincing.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

*Starred Review* A generation after Watergate, "Plamegate" has reignited heated debate about the government, the press, and the use of anonymous sources. Pearlstine was editor in chief of Time Inc. when he made the decision to hand over a reporter's notes to the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, allegedly to punish her husband for criticizing the Bush administration. In this absorbing book, Pearlstine addresses the criticism, sometimes vitriolic, of his decision to reveal a confidential source. Pearlstine argues that Plamegate was hardly comparable to Watergate or the Pentagon Papers, hailed as benchmarks of the struggle between a free—and fearless—press and a government bent on secrecy and skulduggery. He argues that the press has been so enamored of confidential sources since Watergate that it is in danger of seeing itself as above the law. He notes that most confidential sources are hardly worth protecting, having their own hidden agendas. Pearlstine advocates a balance: a federal shield law to protect journalists and more willingness on the part of reporters to disclose. Regardless of how readers feel about his actions, this is a vital look at press responsibility in monitoring the government and itself. Bush, Vanessa

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1st edition (June 26, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0374224498
• ISBN-13: 978-0374224493
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.3 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #947,259 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #79 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Communication > Media & Politics
  #100 in	Books > Nonfiction > Law > Media & the Law

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars How journalism handles anonymous sources, and what's been wrong with that, October 6, 2007

By	Stephen J. Snyder "Socratic Gadfly" (Lancaster, Texas United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Norman Pearlstine was until 2005 editor-in-chief of Time, Inc., the entire stable of Time's magazines, from Time itself through Fortune, Sports Illustrated and many others on to People (which Pearlstine says often does the best job in handling sources) and more.

As editor-in-chief at that time, he had the ultimate call on how to handle special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's subpoena of both Time writer Matt Cooper and Time, Inc., followed by Judge Thomas Hogan's civil contempt finding when Time, Inc. and Cooper were initially recalcitrant.

First, Pearlstine knows his editorial chops. Before moving to the Time stable, he was managing editor of the Wall Street Journal. And, he knows his legal issues, too, having obtained a law degree.

As such, he carefully nuanced his company's response to various steps in the legal process before the Supreme Court finally refused to hear the appeal from the appellate court level.

At that point, he decided his company and Cooper had to obey the subpoena, even if he didn't totally like it. Immediately, journalistic critics from inside the field descended like locusts, calling Pearlstine a sellout to the TimeWarner board of directors, shareholders, etc. That was in spite of the fact that, when countered what they would do in a similar situation themselves, most the critics either refused to respond or said they would have done what he did.

Pearlstine in large part faults reporters and journalistic entities, especially those inside the Beltway, for bringing this problem on themselves. While he doesn't hit it as hard as he could have, he picks up on the issue of journalists running with the Fourth Estate idea to consider themselves stars, and ultimate becoming a quasi-political part of the problem.

Beyond that, he notes many journalists are sloppy about granting confidentiality too freely and too quickly, not discussing carefully, and relatively early in the sourcing progress, what level of attributional confidentiality the source wants and the reporter is willing to give, and not distinguishing between confidential sources, and true, reporter subpoena-resisting anonymous sources. (Pearlstine found, independently of Karl Rove's lawyer saying he had never asked for anonymity, that Rove was indeed not an anonymous source, and that Matt Cooper was guilty of some of the errors laid out above.)

Short of a SCOTUS revisiting of Branzburg (which, given the current Court, could be disastrous), Pearlstine says the need for a federal shield law is paramount. He discusses various attempts that have recently been put through Congress, and the hostility of the Bush Administration to even a mild, loophole-filled version.

Beyond that, Pearlstine is refreshing for his challenge to his own, and my own, profession. He clearly states that a shield law should not be absolute, that reporter-source sourcing agreements are a contract of sorts, that the ultimate call on changing their terms belongs to sources and not reporters, and that many reporters, above all investigative reporters, need to be on a tighter editorial leash, citing former New York Times reporter Judith Miller as Exhibit No. 1.

In short, if you want a great look at how today's Beltway journalism operates, followed by a prescription for how it should operate, this book is a winner.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars the minutia of modern politics and the law, October 16, 2007

By	James Neville (Katy (Houston), TX) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is an important book. Part memoir and part explanation, "Off the Record" documents the Karl Rove affair from the perspective of Norman Pearlstine, boss of Time Inc. at the time, who was vilified for turning over records to a government investigation and thus supposedly violating journalism values esteemed since Watergate. Except it wasn't so simple, as this book makes clear in an entertaining and engaging manner.

Pearlstine trained as both lawyer and journalist and had a powerful career, including managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, before his 10-year post with Time Inc.

At Time Inc. Pearlstine was responsible for major magazines including Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly, and Fortune. The Karl Rove affair occurred when someone's wife was "leaked" to be a CIA employee, and a government investigator was assigned to determine if laws had been broken. No espionage law was found to have been violated; but a government employee was indicted for false testimony in front of a grand jury.

The case was confusing and involved the minutia of modern politics and the law. Pearlstine reveals how inadequate were journalistic standards of the time for use of anonymous and confidential sources; also how widespread the use of deliberate "leaks". The appendix includes Pearlstine's new standards for editors and reporters for modern media including online as well as broadcast and print. In a brilliant and readable review, the author explains the differences in the romance of Watergate from the issues at play in Plamegate - including criminal vs. civil contempt and corporate vs. personal citations by a ruling court.

Until this book, I had no idea of the important connection between legal savvy and journalistic savvy. What seemed to be trivial minutia turned out to be important distinctions, and Pearlstine explains them well. In the aftermath of the Karl Rove affair, more and more journalists came to appreciate the difficulty of the decision Pearlstine faced, and to empathize if not agree with him.

I enjoyed this book because it is well written by a man with passion and intelligence. He has a good story to tell and good points to make. I have a new appreciation with which to follow modern political and legal debates being worked out in the public and not-so-public domains. I can't help but wonder what Pearlstine will be up to next: he handed Time Inc. over to his planned successor in 2005 before writing this book.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Failed to address an important topic, October 11, 2007

By	Doran Blue (Sudbury, MA USA) - See all my reviews

This is a dense book covering the topic of journalist sources in some detail. I was therefore disappointed that Pearlstine did not spend more time discussing the issue of the government using a willing press to further its agenda, thereby turning journalists into uncritical mouthpieces for the administration.

How convenient that the government hides behind confidential sources in these circumstances. And should newspapers support journalists who cozy up to powerful sources in this way?

The worse case of this has to be the reporting on WMD prior to the war with Iraq. The media failed to do its job, and lost alot of credibility as a result. Pearlstine alludes to this somewhat in his discussion of Judith Miller, but I believe he should have covered this topic more.