I actually think that Greenhouse was on pretty solid ground. She accepted an invitation to speak with a group of academics, and was not told that the session would be broadcast in advance. It's not as if they invited her to give a speech and were upfront about the fact that C-SPAN would be taping, she accepted, and THEN demanded that there be no cameras. It sounds like she objected to something akin to a bait-and-switch, whether intentional or inadvertent, by the program planners.

I'm also wondering where people get the idea that journalists somehow have an obligation to be on television whenever anyone else wants them to. Reporting is her *job,* and so far as I can tell, no one other than her employer can tell her when she has to be doing her job. As a former academic, I can say that there are very good reasons not to want to have discussions televised; really good discussions involve people putting ideas out for others to comment on, testing ideas that you may or may not commit to, etc. There has to be some freedom to try things out, to say things that you don't really mean for the sake of helping someone develop an idea (like playing Devil's Advocate), etc., that you just can't do if there is a camera in the room.

I think you make very valid points, but lots of non-reporters feel unfairly put on the spot when their limited-audience or even off-the-record discussions are covered by reporters, whether or not the reporters are armed with cameras or notebooks. At least if the entire interview is televised there's less chance of a misunderstanding. That's more likely to happen on C-Span.

Furthermore, for some reporters, nothing is off-the-record, despite a pre-existing agreement. So I understand why some people get upset when they see reporters raising a screen that looks something like a double standard.

Greenhouse wasn't covering the discussion, she was a participant in the discussion; that is, she was not acting as a reporter at that event. Presumably, everyone at the discussion is equally free to talk to others, including the press if they so wish, about what was discussed. If a non-reporter does not want a reporter to cover his or her discussion or event, the non-reporter is welcome to tell the reporter to go away (assuming the discussion is not taking place at an event open to the general public). If you are worried about a reporter misquoting you or violating an off-the-record agreement, just don't talk to one. If a particular reporter does not honor promises not to quote sources, then the solution is for people to choose not to talk to that reporter. Greenhouse did not want to be on TV during that particular discussion, so she refused to do so. Any other academic who objected could have done exactly the same thing.

Kit-Kat:

If a non-reporter does not want a reporter to cover his or her discussion or event, the non-reporter is welcome to tell the reporter to go away (assuming the discussion is not taking place at an event open to the general public). If you are worried about a reporter misquoting you or violating an off-the-record agreement, just don't talk to one. If a particular reporter does not honor promises not to quote sources, then the solution is for people to choose not to talk to that reporter.

That is extremely unlikely to be honored in practice if the subject is sufficiently important. I think Lawrence Summers' famous sexist comments about women in science were made in an off-the-record context and I for one am glad they were reported.

I also seem to recall that the NYT broke an agreement some years ago and published off-the-record comments in a session with Hillary Clinton. I can't remember the substance of that discussion, but I recall being shocked at the time that the agreement had been breached.

I do understand the issue of the fear of having one's comments distorted or being taken out of context -- some ill-intentioned people will do that no matter how carefully you state something. But the bottom line is that today if you appear in any public or quasi-public context (and an academic conference qualifies) reporter or no, you have to be prepared to be recorded or quoted.

That very fear is why so many people like to make anonymous comments on the Web.

<<That is extremely unlikely to be honored in practice if the subject is sufficiently important. I think Lawrence Summers' famous sexist comments about women in science were made in an off-the-record context and I for one am glad they were reported.>>

First of all, it was a speech he gave.

<link>

Secondly, what was sexist about it? It was a speech the former Treasury Secretery UNDER CLINTON and multi-national award winning economist gave on how to get MORE diversity (women & minorities) in science and engineering with certain elements getting taken out of context by people who should know better if they have any idea of what the scientific method consists of. Instead, the "PC POLICE" flies of the handle and tries to ruin someone who understands concepts of statistics. Many of the same people would never consider any actions against Ward Churchill, despite his idiotic remarks and fabrication or plagarism of so much he was involved in.

<<I also seem to recall that the NYT broke an agreement some years ago and published off-the-record comments in a session with Hillary Clinton. I can't remember the substance of that discussion, but I recall being shocked at the time that the agreement had been breached.>>

Would you have felt the same way if it had been Rove or Cheney?

Re: Summers, I don't have time to research it, but as I recall it was informal remarks, not a speech. Had it been a formal speech, presumably it wouldn't have taken several days to get the transcript after the fallout. He also disingenuously pretended that making the remarks behind closed doors also meant somehow that people would forget he was the president of Harvard. The reason the comments got such attention was precisely because of his position.

Don't know you why you think I'd have had a different reaction if it had been Rove or Cheney, although admittedly I can't stand either. The H. Clinton conference was several years ago. My point was that expectations about the honoring of off-the-record agreements by reporters have changed. If you speak in public or semi-public, you speak with the expectation of being reported on or recorded.

"Off-the-record" usually means that you and the reporter are the only people in the room. If I give a talk to 10 other people, any of them, journalists or not, can go tell other people what I said. "Off-the-record" has no meaning in that context.

I would say that a public speech is one given in a public forum or at an event open to the general public. In that case, you have no right to keep the press out, and if the event at which you speak is at all important, either locally or nationally, you should probably expect that there will be reporters present.

The Greenhouse issue, though, was not about whether she was on- or off- the record; if there was a group of academics present, she obviously wasn't providing confidential information or anything. I don't know whether the conference was open to anyone or whether it was by invitation only, so I don't know the "public" status of the conference, but I don't think that was the issue, either. It was about whether the discussion was to be televised by C-SPAN, or televised at all.