Hillary Spokesperson Blasts Reporters For Using Drudge As Their "Assignment Editor"
February 26, 2008 -- 5:18 PM EST // //
In this morning's Washington Post, Dana Milbank has a sketch that mocks Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer for lambasting reporters at a breakfast yesterday.
Singer was ticked because the press was following Matt Drudge's story about Hillary's staffers allegedly spreading a pic of Obama in a turban:
Before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.Milbank thinks the observation that reporters used Drudge as an "assignment editor" yesterday is strange and amounts to a taunt. But isn't it basically true? Mark Halperin openly says Drudge "rules our world," doesn't he?"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign."...
The brief moment explained everything about the bitter relations between Clinton's campaign and the media: Singer taunting the likes of Broder, who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born...
Let's review. Yesterday Drudge ran an item saying that unnamed Hillary "staffers" had "circulated" the photo. Drudge didn't say who the staffers were or what level they occupy in the campaign. Drudge didn't say whom the photo was circulated among. It was just "circulated." This has no meaning. If one of Hillary's lowliest staffers emailed the pic to another lowly staffer, Drudge's description would still apply.
Based on the strength of confirmed-fact-inventor Drudge's word and nothing else, the Obama camp attacked Hillary for dirty politics. But even before Obama released their statement, reporters were asking about the Drudge story -- even though it didn't really say anything with any meaning.
By the end of the day, all the major news orgs were carrying this story (as was TPM Election Central). Even though Camp Hillary belatedly denied it. Even though no evidence ever emerged beyond Drudge's word that it had happened. And even though Drudge hadn't even alleged anything clear-cut at all to begin with.
Is the fault partly the Hillary campaign's? Absolutely. They waited way too long to deny the story. You could argue that the Camp Hillary denial wasn't absolute -- but again, what exactly were they supposed to be denying? And let's face it -- no matter how forceful or early the denial had been, all the news orgs would have run with it, anyway. Even Milbank's WaPo colleague, Chris Cillizza, yesterday opined that the Obama camp attacked Hillary precisely because they could count on the networks to run the story based solely on Drudge's word.
Does this performance count as using Drudge as your assignment editor?
The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.