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."
Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.
Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?
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!'
President Obama should be fine with it, he does support warrantless wiretapping, that's essentially what heppend here.
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!
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.
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.
Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....
People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.
White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.