Off the record with the AG

This might be up for discussion on the politics board or elsewhere, but I wonder from a journalistic perspective what people here think of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/news-organizations-split-over-meeting-u-attorney-general-215336030.html

In the wake of the AP and Fox News scandal(s), Attorney General Eric Holder wants to meet with news organizations to discuss how Justice is handling and should handle its leak investigations with regard to the First Amendment and the reporting process. But several outlets, including the New York Times, AP, Reuters, CBS, CNN, Huffington Post and Fox News, have refused to join the meetings because Holder wants the discussion to be off the record. Other outlets (Washington Post, NY Daily News, New Yorker, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News) have agreed to the off-the-record meetings, saying news orgs and sources routinely talk off the record to set ground rules and discuss information, coverage and stories.

Given the high profile of the case and the person initiating the discussion, should news orgs demand Holder go on the record about this? Or does it make sense to try to clear the air in an unguarded conversation, without the fear that what is said will wind up as a headline?

 

It's idiotic for Holder or his advisers to think anything said to a group of news organizations would be kept from the public. It's idiotic for media organizations to agree to an "off the record" roundtable.

 

Really, how can a news organization obtain any benefit from an off-the-record conversation with a government official announced in advance by said official? It's one thing if Holder told a reporter something in confidence where his identity could be kept out of a story. This is not that.

 

Yeah I have always wondered how they do an entire press conference/briefing as off-the-record. I suppose it's just a reflection (and not a good one) of the chummy politician/press relationship.

Still, though -- even if it is standard operating procedure, these are hardly standard times for Eric Holder.

 

At first I thought the thread title was "Off the record with IJAG"

That would have had more fireworks.

 

I'm thinking these news orgs will agree to "off the record", then somehow magically find some leaks to this meeting and report them.

 

... thus leading to more governmental snooping and investigations.

 

They could just give each other anonymous sourcing:

" ... according to a high-level insider who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject."

That would be fun.

When the shit hits the fan: "Yeah, we did it. Wanna talk ethics?"

 

A number of outlets basically told him, with good reason, to go fuck himself and didn't show up.

 

This just in: Holder caves.

http://news.yahoo.com/news-editor-boycott-u-attorney-general-loosens-rules-195712160.html

Another meeting went ahead on Friday after Holder agreed its contents would be largely for publication, Reuters Chief Operating Officer Stuart Karle told reporters outside Justice Department headquarters. Karle attended with Marilyn Thompson, the Reuters bureau chief in Washington.

 

Aren't these "off the record" and "on background" meetings pretty routine in Washington and have been for years? It's not like this is something new. Top officials have been doing interviews as "a high ranking government source" or other description for many years in many administrations.