Slashdot Mirror
Technical Glitch Lets Reporters Eavesdrop On Obama, Sarkozy
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."
2 people agree the another is an ass. What is the news?
Fox News will have a fair and balanced field day with this.
In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.
The scene
It's safe for work.
Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
The article isn't very clearly written, but it's Sarkozy accusing Netanyahu of being a liar. Edited for clarity:
Mr. Sarkozy: 'I can't stand him any more. He's a liar.'
Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!'
There is a huge difference between being anti semetic and being anti zionist. The Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by Israel are also semetic. Sarkozy was not wrong (in this case).
President Obama should be fine with it, he does support warrantless wiretapping, that's essentially what heppend here.
It's politics - we'll never know!
The BBC article suggests that reporters were told not to plug headsets into the translation reception devices and, of course, did so anyway.
Another article (Dutch) suggests that reporters were given the devices and told that they would receive headsets later - some decided to plug in their own (didn't want to wait? didn't want to use other headphones? who knows).
Regardless, it was apparent that all of the reporters were getting the French translation of the discussion that took place (according to the Dutch article).
Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.
What actually transpired? Well, who cares, really.
At least two world leaders are now somewhat on the record as to their disdain of Netanyahu. On the other hand, that disdain doesn't matter. Berlusconi is still in office (for now, announced he's leaving in 2 weeks) despite having grossly insulted world leaders of pretty much every nation. If they can't even really deal with him, what hope would they have of dealing with the Israelis? If they even wanted to.
I think it's possible to dislike their PM without wanting them destroyed. I disliked Bush, but it didn't make me unamerican.
Moreover, this is two politicians talking. Why do we assume that they were being honest with each other?
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
Disagree strongly, and I have worked as a journalist. A journalist is not a spy. Also, a journalist has a duty to determine what is news and what is simply information that has not been publicly disclosed. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know where Nancy Pelosi is on her menstrual cycle every time she makes a speech of votes in Congress, but this type of information simply isn't "fit to print," as the New York Times motto goes.
And speaking of the Times, here is a passage from that paper's journalistic ethics policy:
27. Staff members and others on assignment for us must obey the law in the gathering of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and e-mail or voice-mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In the case of government orders or court directives to disclose a confidential source, journalists will consult with the newsroom management and the legal department on the application of this paragraph.
(emphasis mine)
Trust me, you are far better off when responsible journalists develop sources in a fair, honest, professional manner, rather than resorting to tabloid tactics. A journalist who blasts the slightest gaffe in 72-point headlines will quickly cease to hear anything at all.
It's like the beat cop who hauls everybody down to the precinct for the slightest infraction, versus the one who lets folks slide for the occasional open container or vandalism charge. Of the two, the one with the "zero tolerance policy" is going to have a much tougher time doing his job when something really important comes along.
Breakfast served all day!
The Reporters were told not to turn their headsets on until the show began. (Probably a bit silly in that Sarkosky/Obama should have turned their microphones off until they wished to be heard). As the conversation was meant to be private it would have been a serious violation (as in crime under french law) for anyone in attendance that was a French journalist to report on the content of what they illicitly overheard. So a tabloid that wasn't in attendence caught wind of the conversation and reported it. I'd expect that criminal charges will be leveled against whoever peeped.
But the point here is that under French law (privacy of conversation) they COULDN'T report on what they overheard (or they could be arrested) because they broke the conference rule by turning on their headsets early.
That's the little bit you won't hear in any of the US reporting.
None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.
It becomes impossible to have effective negotiations if each side must worry about how every sentence will sound to their constituencies. Americans would have flipped had they known that Kennedy agreed to remove some obsolete missile installations in Italy and Turkey to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet by doing so he avoided the very real possibility of nuclear holocaust. Just a thought...
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
No, Obama does not speak to him every day.
Do you know what "hyperbole" is? Do you know that "deal with" is not equivalent to "speak with"? Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US? Do you realize that foreign policy IS an affair of the US? Do you believe everything you read in a Slashdot summary, or for that matter, on the Internet at all?
I don't think you really understand how the presidency operates at all. Or journalists, or politics, or...
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
They have rational leadership? Is that why apparently everyone thinks he's an asshole? Wouldn't a rational leader try to gain the trust of important world leaders? Is that why he can't establish peace even with the most powerful nation on Earth on his side? And by what definition is a theocracy a form of rational leadership?
A lot of the leadership in the middle east was installed by the U.S. I mean, I think it's kind of hypocritical for the U.S. to put an insane restaurant owner in charge of Afghanistan and then complain about a lack of rational leadership.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "
I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.
In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?
But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.
Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."
Breakfast served all day!
Jewish is not an ethnicity. Semitic is the ethnicity Jews derive from. Arabs are also Semitic. I'm not even sure how you went off on this tangent, as you appear to be arguing that Jewish is a separate ethnicity, its not, it's a religion not ethnic origin. Jews and Arabs are from the same ethnic group, the only real difference between the groups is the religion, which has nothing to do with genetic ethnicity. Palestinians aren't ethnically Jewish because Jewish isn't an ethnicity.
That would be like saying anglo-saxons are ethnically Christian. It's nonsense. You appear to need to study what ethnicity is and how ethnic groups are divided. Let me give you a hint, it's not dictated by the religion they choose.
Really? The standing ovation of Congress was bad treatment? The Congress applauds Netanyahu more than its own president.
While you're at it, you conveniently leave out Joe Biden's visit to Israel and what a slap in the face to the US that was!
You're either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. The end result is the same.
The big question is, why is there a dislike of Netanyahu? Nothing happens without reason.