yet more on pitts

Okay, I really didn't figure I'd have anything more to say about Edward Lee Pitts. But the controversy continues to rage on Romensko's letters page, and I have gotten sucked back into it.

Here's a letter I sent responding to Charles Pierce:

I certainly don't have a problem with any reporter disrupting a staged event, including Secretary Rumsfeld's. And the question Spc. Wilson asked was absolutely legitimate. However -- in this reporter's humble opinion -- it is still dishonest and deceptive to influence an event and then report on it as if you had no involvement.

Am I just being self-righteous here? Way out in left-field? I don't know, I hope not -- call me crazy, but this just seems to me to be a pretty important principle. I don't think you can dismiss Lee Pitts' lapse as a "small transgression," as Bryan Keefer does -- the deception strikes at the heart of Pitts' article.

Here's a letter I sent to David Hanners:

In general, I think, there's nothing wrong with reporters posing questions for sources to ask others. You can ask J-Lo's publicist a question to pose to J-Lo, no problem there, and who cares about disclosure, right?

The difficulty is when you get into questions posed at public events, public forums and the like, where you're going to be reporting on the actual event. I think any event you're going to be reporting on, you should absolutely shy away trying to influence.

David, do you watch "The Wire"? Best show on TV. In the current season's opener, Councilman Carcetti rips Police Commissioner Burrell at a subcomittee meeting over over-spending and a rise in crime. Well, suppose those questions had been suggested to Carcetti by a reporter, fed up with getting the run-around from Burrell, who then proceeded to report on the subcomittee meeting ("Carcetti blasts police commish!") as if he had no involvement. Would that be ethical? (I am not suggesting an exact parallel between this example and what happened in Kuwait).

Jerome Weeks of the Dallas Morning News also responded to my comments, writing in part, "Mr. Pitts may be obnoxiously self-congratulatory, but having Rummy deliver one of those condescending answers directly to endangered soldiers -- THAT was the story, and it would never have happened unless Mr. Pitts did what he did." My reply to him:

Y'know, I agree with you, mostly. I doubt that the Pentagon could really bar a reporter from press conferences for asking a tough question -- think of the controversy -- but you're absolutely right: this story was what it was because the question was asked by a soldier.

I think both the question and the answer were essential parts of this story. In Pitts' article, for example, he names Spc. Wilson in the second sentence, and quotes him in the third. Rumsfeld's reply isn't given to the fifth sentence. Here was his lede:

"Members of the 278th Regimental Combat Team on Wednesday brought their concerns about a lack of armor for vehicles soon heading into Iraq directly to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."

But whether the story was the answer or the question or both, you've admitted that Pitts inserted himself into the story.

Now, it may be that because of this, more soldiers get armor and some lives are saved.

And maybe if more reporters tried to influence more events, the world could be a better place. There are, of course, some pretty smart reporters out there.

Maybe the next time the mayor holds a public forum, we can make sure the questioner takes an especially poignant question on the problems faced by immigrants, for example. Or suggest questions to friendly senators during the next judicial confirmation hearings. There are lots of possibilities -- you get the idea. Whaddya think?