About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Halperin and Heilemann admit they don't know what Bill Clinton actually said

January 12, 2010 5:24 pm ET

From the January 12 edition of Fox Business' Imus in the Morning

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Mark Halperin says of remarks attributed to Bill Clinton:  "our sources tried to remember what was said, they didn't agree on the exact language. They agreed on the gist precisely."  

From the January 12 edition of Fox Business' Imus in the Morning:

DON IMUS: Let me start with the Bill Clinton quote. You explain -- well, tell me how you go about placing quotes in quotation marks and not in quotation marks. You can start with Mark or John -- either one.

JOHN HEILEMANN: Well, we've been very, very careful. You know, there's a lot of sloppiness in these books you'll find if you read them. People put things in quotation markets all the time --

IMUS: Yes.

HEILEMANN: -- that they've heard second or third hand. Anything in our book that has quotation marks around it, we explain in the author's note is either something that came directly from the person who said the quote or someone who heard it directly. There's no hearsay accounts of quotations that we put in quotation marks.

So, there's a lot of paraphrase dialogue that's not in quotation marks that doesn't quite meet that standard but which we've multiply sourced, but, generally, it's because, you know, people have heard it, either -- in some cases, we got it from the direct speaker, but they couldn't quite remember the right words, or we've got it from multiple other sources. But in those cases we leave it outside quotations because we don't want to put anything within quotation marks that we're not absolutely sure came from the speaker, someone who'd heard it directly and who is absolutely sure that those are the words that were used.

We were trying to be supercautious in terms of how we deployed quotation marks. And in this case, it's a good example.

IMUS: Was that a shot at Bob Woodward there at the top of that?

HEILEMANN: Taking a shot at no one.

IMUS: [unintelligible] You, Charles? Anyway, about the quotes --

MARK HALPERIN: I'm not --

IMUS: -- and stuff? Well, here's the quote we're talking about: Ted Kennedy apparently -- apparently, Bill Clinton said to him a few years ago -- he called Ted Kennedy, trying to get Ted to endorse his wife, Hillary -- and it's in quotation marks in the information from your publisher.

HALPERIN: I think 'cause they're quoting from the book. The Kennedy part is not --

IMUS: I see.

HALPERIN: -- and the Clinton part is not a quote. It's -- that is a quote from the book of the paraphrase from the book.

IMUS: That's the way --

HALPERIN: Does that make sense?

IMUS: No, it's weak. Anyway, a few years ago, this guy Obama would have been getting us coffee. What did he say? If you're paraphrasing --

HALPERIN: Well, he said something just like that.

IMUS: Well, like -- but -- what?

HALPERIN: Well, we're just -- again, because we knew that that was an important quote, would get a lot of attention, as our sources tried to remember what was said, they didn't agree on the exact language. They agreed on the gist precisely. But we didn't want to be in the position of quoting something that sensitive in quotation marks without, again as John said, the very high level we were using.

So, there's no doubt that that is more than the essence of what he said. It's very close. And the differences in the versions we've heard were not very far, one or two words in two cases but we didn't want to put it in quotes.

HEILEMANN: And just to be further clear, I mean, in this case in the book, we're very specific, we say, this is what Kennedy reported to some of his friends --

IMUS: Right.

HEILEMANN: -- claimed that Bill Clinton said. So, we even took it a little further out. And in a lot of other cases, we'll just say, you know, Bill Clinton said the following to Ted Kennedy -- for sure that happened. All we can say in this case is that Kennedy told people that's what Bill Clinton said or something very close to that and it enraged Kennedy 'cause he took it as a pretty serious slam on Obama with some kind of negative racial connotations

IMUS: You guys have been very careful to say that all of these sources -- 300 or whoever you talked to -- most of them you knew. So you had -- so you were able to determine the veracity of their statements with in fact, 'cause you had experience. But it's been my experience, not being a reporter but just common sense, that when somebody tells you what somebody else said, that a lot -- that sometimes a lot gets lost. And that -- as an example, well, I say things about people on the radio, which often are icky things, you know, and then it gets reported to these various people. It's  always far worse than what I actually said.

HALPERIN: Well, look, that is the nature of the different -- the challenge of reporting. Here's what we did to try to mitigate that as much as possible.

IMUS: Right.

HALPERIN: We did over 300 interviews and these were not short interviews. Some of them lasted six hours or longer.

IMUS: God. Such as --

HALPERIN: We went --

IMUS: You guys --

HALPERIN: We went back -- well, there were --

IMUS: That's brutal.

HALPERIN: There were breaks involved.

IMUS: Oh, OK.

HEILEMANN: That's the kind of technique we use in Guantanamo Bay sometimes.

HALPERIN: We went back to people multiple times. Some people we interviewed more than half a dozen times. In most journalism today, because of the nature of our business, you're lucky if you interview somebody twice for a story.

In addition, we were very careful with people to say, do you remember or not? And you can learn. Some people in the interview, it's clear that they had bad memories. They can't remember what happened earlier in the interview. Other people have very good memories. And I think, most important, and this is why we think -- why -- part of why we wanted to write the book, is in campaigns people don't write stuff down, there aren't a lot of memos or documents.

So you have to rely on the oral history. We interviewed people about the nomination fights right after they ended, before the general election kicked off. We interviewed people right after the general election. We think a lot of the stuff in that book would have otherwise been lost to history, because if you went and interviewed people about this now, too much has happened since then. They won't remember, but it was fresh in their minds and that really benefited us.

Previously/Related:

Memo to media: Statement attributed to Clinton in Game Change is not a direct quote

Sargent:  Umm...Clinton May Not Have Said Racially-Charged "Getting Us Coffee" Quote

The Village doesn't care about sources

Veteran journalist blasts "convoluted" Halperin/Heilemann explanation of their ground rules

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (January 12, 2010 5:28 pm ET)
      1  
      Halperin and Heilemann: The "Milli Vanilli" of Journalism......

      :-)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 12, 2010 6:54 pm ET)
        1  
        Personally I have been impressed with a lot of the information in the book and the overall attempt to thoroughly source quotes. Reid did not deny anything and Schmidt has gone on 60 Minutes to confirm just about everything said in the book. This quote about Clinton should have been left out as it is apparently entirely hearsay. It looks like it was just too juicy a nugget and brought out the worst in these two otherwise decent journalists (although I have criticized Halperin previously for his opinions at times). I am not willing to throw out the rest of their report as it does have some parts that seem to be extremely well sourced and credible. I guess the source of each quote will have to rest on its own merit and this supposed quote or paraphrase does not rest on much.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Marker (January 12, 2010 5:35 pm ET)
      1  
      These two frauds need to be sued.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (January 12, 2010 5:38 pm ET)
      1  
      Agreed on the gist precisely. RFLAO. That's a gem.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reinhard (January 12, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
      1  
      So in other words they don't know it it's true but they know it sells books.Damn Fox News and the rest of the mainstream media.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookie von zipper (January 12, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
         
      media matters acts as if what some guy said about some other guy saying something to yet another guy, now dead, is a problem...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (January 12, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
           
        You have just successfully and very succinctly described the conservative blogosphere - and it is a problem.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 12, 2010 6:12 pm ET)
           
        You may come off as an obtuse, egotestical, closed minded hypocritical kind of guy but for some sick reason I'm attracted to you. Do you have a steve austin costume in your closet?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (January 12, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
      1  
      We should probably give some props to Imus here. He seems pretty sober and reasonable. What happened?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (January 12, 2010 10:27 pm ET)
         
      They did say that all of their sources agreed that Clinton did in effect make that statement, they could not however all agree on the exact words. That is good enough. Can anyone really be surprised that an elitist like Clinton, outraged when he realized he would not get to play in the White House again would make a statement like that. It is totally believable.
      Report Abuse