Ali Watkins may not have been innocent or inexperienced, but she was out of her depth. Ali needed mentoring from her various editors, what she received was exploitation. Ms. Watkins appears to be a hard working walk on talent. A Temple grad from working class roots with more passion and drive then most of the clubby Ivy leaguers that inhabit DC. She had a source on an important committee. Look the other way on the conflict of interest. Encourage her and if it blows up - well she is just a throwaway. Thousands more like her. Journalism is a ruthless business. For most it is a good job and not a pious calling for the truth. Sorry NYT. During the pursuit of a scoop valuable information is sometimes a by-product. That doesn’t justify the messy system or make me feel bad that an ethically challenged journalist had some of their emails confiscated.
11
Reading comments here should tell you Times’ editors that you folks are in a big pickle. There is no way to explain yourself out of this. As a young reporter, I was handed a code of conduct that said,“We pay our own way” and “Our credibility should be above reproach” if we conduct ourselves ethically. Once, as a line editor, one of my young female reporters received two dozen roses delivered to her desk from the city manager she was covering. I told her to deliver them across the street to the nursing home. Period! Journalists have only their credibility. I have always adopted that credo, borrowing a slogan from our now-defunct Easter Airlines: “We earn our wings every day.” Miss Watkins and the New York Times have crashed and burned, and the entire journalism industry now has to regain lost public trust. For the Times’ part, you must hire an ombudsman/reader advocate asap. And all the managers (I shudder to call them “editors”) should be made to go through refresher ethics training.
26
I don't care what the chronology was ~ Ms. Watkins lacks judgement and the perspicacity I would expect from a professional (much less NYT) journalist. National security isn't tiddlywinks. I doubt I could conjure much respect for Mr. Wolfe, but Ms. Watkins is the one we're looking at here. The operative phrase should be "beyond reproach." I was willing to give her a little leeway for her youth until I got to the part where she took up with ANOTHER committee member. D.U.M.B.
17
One error in judgment by a young jurinalist should should not be allowed to taint all of the fine work done by the press. After all, she is only one of many.
5
She will leave (some face-saving way, lest Trump be gratified) because she cannot cover a story without being part of the story.
9
Repetition compulsion!
The good people of the press appear to be compulsively repeating the same kind of mistakes that allowed Trump to steal more than his share of headlines during the 2016 campaign--headlines that were certainly a factor in keeping Mrs. Clinton out of the White House.
As is widely understood, Trump's devilry during the campaign translated into more revenue, so the media chose Mammon over God. In the light of this present article, policies that promote media greed over professionalism remain uncorrected.
I do not expect the media to act like a vast network of charities, but in this era, when the future of democracy may well be at stake, I do expect the media to act with unquestionable integrity.
It would appear that Ms. Watkins' career contained shadings of the sordid from the very beginning. The reasons why more seasoned hands refrained from firing her many months ago may not bear examination.
When the situation is fully clarified, I think that not only Ms. Watkins but a few of her supervisory personnel at several publications may want to relieve themselves of their duties, if only to 'encourage the others.'
Please, no more gifts that help the would-be dictator in the White House chortle the night away. Lift up your ethics or get gone.
9
The media cannot stop covering President Trump. Any newspaper foolish enough to would be bankrupt within the year.
3
I have 30 years in broadcast news at the network level. My question: this woman still works for you? Why?
32
You can't possibly bring her back. If her name was on a story, everyone would wonder who she slept with.
24
Under the guise of analysis I see a lot of defending of Ms. Watkins in this article. Nonetheless, what I get is this:
*Ali Watkins has had significant scoops and success at a very young age. Now we know how.
*A reporter accepting a pearl necklace is beyond weird and unethical. This seems so obvious and self evident that I wonder just who and what is guiding journalistic ethics these days.
*The NYT is doing well now, but thing can change on a dime and their history of hiring and nurturing fraudulent reporters is disturbing and notable. There is something wrong with the culture at the Times.
36
It is certainly not surprising that NYT's editors would not have a problem with receiving ethically compromised information and publishing it, as this is not this isn't exactly novel conduct for them. I suspect that their wonder lust to bring down Trump and desire to obtain information through any means necessary justifies the end in their eyes. While this young woman may be very bright and industrious she will always been known going forward as someone who used sex to further her career. The fairer sex using sex to get a head is also nothing new. In this age of "Me Too" it begs the question, for every woman who is sexually harassed how many are out there who advanced themselves through consensual sex? We will never know because unlike the"Me Too" those who have advanced themselves in this fashion are not going to come forward, but rest assured they are out there in mass.
27
“The most important issue here remains the seizure of a journalist’s personal communications, which we condemn and believe all Americans should be deeply concerned about,” said Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The Times.
I'm sorry, Ms. Murphy, but you (and the Times) are wrong. The most important issue here is a so-called journalist having such a blatant conflict of interest, and her editors knowing about it and letting her get away with it. The fact that you can't see that only shows how far the profession of journalism has fallen.
35
There are two important issues, one constitutional and one personal. There should be none, but at minimum, one: constitutional. Youth may often be brilliant, but it is not always wise. (Said from bitter experience, although not from experience that would have jeopardized the republic.)
5
As much as I would like to be forgiving, it seems her reporting took advantage of her intimate relationship and in turn he revealed to her far more than he would have revealed to another journalist ... so it looks like this could be treason, if the secrets revealed were of national importance.
No matter the politics, government officials should protect the government and not sell its secrets.
14
Anyone else wonder if there really is a "Rambo" works for Customs and Border Protection? It sounds like an alias to me.
4
His name is actually, Vader at Transportation Security Administration.
5
If you’re going to hire such young cubs, don’t throw them to the wolves.
3
We'll see her name on three or so innocuous stories and they she'll be kicked over to some freedom of the press foundation. Once it is clear to her she has no future in journalism, and that her other professional skills will not keep the wolf from the door, she'll agree.
3
People's sex lives keep popping up as if it was anyone's business while not necessarily hampering their ability to do their jobs in the privacy of their own lives. Hysterical sexual liaisons make for great news required evidently by masses in need to titulation? While in some cases important, if that important let corporate sleuths or NSA sort it out. In the meantime allow hormones to express themselves while not providing more red herring distractions.
1
It hampered both of their ability to maintain credibility in their respective workplaces.
16
That was said. Glad we agree on it -"while not necessarily hampering their ability to do their jobs...".
This newspaper must deal with this situation - always keeping the president demonizing journalism as the only guide. First, she needs to be fired. Second, there needs to be a public airing of all articles she has published. Third, there ought to be a vetting of all nyt journalists.
Like it or not, journalists now have to be beyond reproach, both in behavior and in reporting accurately. That is the scoop to live by.
And believe it or not, if you don't make all the scoops, you will stay have your readers. But if you lose our trust, you will lose our eyeballs and clicks. Not to mention the country loses bigly.
Time to clean house so journalists and the freedom of the press aren't destroyed.
17
So, even though she was having a "relationship" with a potential source on her beat her bosses didn't think there was any conflict. And we are supposed to take Ms. Watkin's word that she never used Mr. Wolfe as a source. Would the times accept such a statement from a member of the Trump administration? Why should we? The inbreeding continues. How many network tv and/or reporter jobs would be lost if they had to be given up because a spouse had a government position? The double standard never stops.
15
This article and these comments don't consider Mr. Wolfe's motives in sufficient detail.
Perhaps he had a partisan interest in leaking things to help "his side."
Perhaps he was using her to do it.
Perhaps she thought she was using him, but it was the other way around in reality.
Who had all the experience and cynical background, the young reporter or the veteran security chief?
Perhaps like Judith Miller, the media got played, used by the insider handing out strategic "leaks".
16
It beats picking locks and breaking into a senator’s office to search thru his files. But getting scoops can resemble intelligence agent recruiting.
My grandfather, Senator Thomas E. Martin of Iowa, in the late 1950s, unexpectedly returned to his office at 2 a.m. Past the staff desks and thru another locked door, and kneeling at granddad’s personal office files, going thru his files, was Clark Mallendorf, the award winning writer for the Des Moines Register newspaper.
Big Ten hammer champion and farm boy, granddad snatched him by the collar and the belt and most undignifiedly carried him out the offices and tossed him into the hallway.
Note: He had to fire six administrative chiefs in a row because they had been corrupted and bought by his own state’s Iowa Republican Party Committee because they did not own him, which deeply bothered them. He actually agreed with them on almost all points, but was not indebted to them and ran his own campaigns for the 22 years undefeated, and raised his own monies, with contributions limited to $25 per person. (Not so little when a new Ford or Chevy cost $500 but definitely not a common limit.)
9
And some folks still can't understand why anonymous sources raise so many red flags with readers.
20
So, it's not just the men who use the casting couch.
Anyway.
The producers and directors at the New York Times only cared about the Box Office.
22
Clearly sex for information. You can dance around it all you want but a 20 year old and a 50 year old who just happens to have his hands on the information she needs? You seem to begging us to tell you the obvious, she was no genius she was a good trader, and you should but likely won't act.
34
"Cultivate " sources... what are some synonyms in the NYT style manual? Going "back " to headline "She worked under a number of different positions for liberal media"
Since she is still working and in good standing at the NYT her "Techniques"must be in the approved investagatve methods of the paper?
Is the NYT bending over to encourage lonely middle age government bureaucrats to volunteer as intimate leakers and sources?
18
Sorry - First - how people conduct their lives, both private and professional, does reflect on who they “are.” People make mistakes, no matter age, but trustworthy people realize it and self-correct. These two just kept going. He should have been taken off the committee years before - his job was too important. Maybe no one should be in his position for decades - too much room for all kinds of improprieties. Which brings me to my second point: I don’t care how smart this woman was purported to be; someone her age, male or female, is too young and inexperienced to given that “beat” to cover. Why are such young people, in this and other fields, given plumb jobs that it used to take years of experience to get? It takes time to learn to navigate in difficult “territory”. Young people might think they can short circuit experience but it usually not only doesn’t work, but ends disastrously, as in this case. And frankly, everyone else should have known better!! Shame on those who didn’t ask the right questions, always gave her the benefit of the doubt! And for that I blame the CEOs who think of nothing but grabbing headlines in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Which is exactly what is wrong with Washington- money is in control to the detriment of fully functioning democracy. My first sentence applies here as well. Look at how people comport themselves in all things - that’s who they are. Do they deserve to be in leadership roles? We need people of integrity more than ever.
24
The minute this women began her affair with Mr. Wolfe she ended any credibility as a reporter along with all the entities she reported for as an employee. Thus ended any first amendment concerns regarding government seizure of emails. The real concern is that newspapers and on-line news sites continued to use her work without divulging what they knew of her personal contact with sources shows how little they care for journalistic integrity and how they really only are looking for the next "got you." Shame on the Times for not firing her immediately.
31
We live in a time where ambition, tenacity and the ability to report on and write a good story are equated with genius. Wouldn’t those old “The Front Page” reporters have a good laugh at that! Danial Shor, a great political and policy reporter, said (I paraphrase) a reporter has an obligation to NOT become friends —let alone lovers—with sources. No free meals, no off-reporting intimacies, no nothing! Because the minute you do, your compromising your ability to report fairly and aggressively. Certainly the Times editors know this and they allowed a young, aggressive reporter to pursue intimate relationships to get the news. It stinks and they know it.
19
The really staggering thing about this isn't two people having sex they shouldn't be having given who they are - that's pretty normal. The staggering thing is all the other editors who knew about it and decided it was ok because she was a really good reporter.
24
It sounds like as a young employee trying to navigate a complex ethical situation, Ms. Watkins received off-base and misleading guidance that she over-applied in later situations.
Disclosure does not work when you do not disclose correctly, when the people who are aware of your disclosure do not apply or enforce appropriate standards, and when the existence of a disclosure is not enough to prevent an ethics violation. We need to work on all three of these issues.
6
"Avoiding conflicts of interest is a basic tenet of journalism, and intimate involvement with a source is considered verboten."
Yet the boss told her to accept the gift; an implicit endorsement of much more.
McClatchy turned this young intern into a Monica L. all for a scoop. The editor who told her to accept the gift should have to go.
20
Does anyone seriously believe that Ms. Watkins was not using her relationship to her advantage?
Riddle me this: is this an element of the #metoo movement that is really underreported.....the obvious gain that some ambitious women seek by and through intimate relationships with powerful men and whether or not they are, then, complicit in the resulting behavior and perhaps more responsible when those self-motivated relationships sour? Discuss.
19
Discussion: This was a consensual, mutually beneficial relationship. It has nothing to do with the #MeToo movement which is about sexual assault and/or harassment.
7
Objectivity is difficult, but it's an essential quality of a news reporter, as it is of a judge, an historian and a scientist. To be fair, one must be objective. To be trusted, one must be fair.
Of course one may and should have personal relationships, but they should not intrude into situations where they could compromise required objectivity. Shouldn't full disclosure be the remedy to avoid bias? That's why lawyers will strike a nurse from serving as a juror in a malpractice case. The same nurse would make a fine juror in a breach of contract case.
This reporter should have been assigned to a different beat.
6
I'm not sure what the point of this article is, unless it's a rather feeble preemptive attempt at damage control by the Times. Neither Watkins nor Wolfe were contacted or quoted directly. Apparently, the "source" for this article are various unnamed and anonymous friends of Ms. Watkins, who, unsurprisingly, seek to cast her in a favorable light. Such being the case, it shares many of the deficiencies of the The New York Times' front page political exposes, which prove to be nothing more than anonymous gossip.
I think that an independent Journalistic counsel needs to be appointed to investigate the New York Times. I can't see how they would object.
15
"anonymous gossip"? Seriously?
In an era where the President can claim that his predecessor 'wiretapped' him without a shred of proof, or any person coming forward to state that it happened, the NYT has to have a higher standard?
How about an example of this 'gossip'?
Bet I don't see anything from you.
6
Laura Foreman was a political reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer in the mid-1970s. While working as a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Foreman began a secret relationship with Pennsylvania state Sen. and South Philly political boss Henry "Buddy" Cianfrani. The two moved in together and Foreman continued to write about Sen. Cianfrani while she accepted gifts and money from him. The two later married.
"Foreman accepted at least $10,000 in gifts from Cianfrani while she was covering local and national politics in 1975 and 1976 for the Philadelphia Inquirer," reported the Washington Post in 1977.
Foreman later went to work in the Washington bureau of The New York Times, but was asked to resign from The New York Times when her affair with Cianfrani become known.
"I don't care if my reporters are sleeping with elephants, as long as they aren't covering the circus," A.M. Rosenthal, executive editor of the Times, memorably said when he fired her.
See "A 'Heroine' Women Can Do Without," The Washington Post, February 11, 1978; "Romancing the source," by Laura Castañeda, Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2007.
23
Seems pretty straightforward..young woman reporter falls for man 30 years older who conveniently turns out to be a source. Now he's in trouble for breaking the law and the Feds want to get the goods on him from her. I hardly think she qualifies for 1st amendment treatment given the story. But of course she will have her defenders.
12
Many of the commenters are appalled because of the appearance of wrongdoing. But this serves only to understate the issue. It is not the appearance of wrongdoing by the reporter and her editors including the NYT rather it is the reality of wrongdoing by the reporter and the her editors including the NYT.
Other commenters say that it gives Trump an unwarranted opportunity to condemn the press and to make unwarranted I told you so tweets. But they are also wrong rather it gives Trump and his supporters very warranted reasons for condemning the Press and saying I told you so.
20
It is both. Credibility of the paper and reputation of the organization come from appearances. That is why Canons of Ethics generally warn to avoid "the appearance of impropriety."
7
Amongst the strangest and saddest stories I've read this month:
- A long-time federal employee entrusted with key secrets for decades uses "007" in his email address?
- A reporter dates a source and neither person saw a cataclysm on the horizon?
- Editors see no conflicts of interest in their reporter's social life vs. their publication's trustworthiness?
15
When I was a journalist we had two rules. No gifts larger than your head and you have to be able to eat it standing up. Give the kid a break. How is this different than Ben Bradlee hanging out with the Kennedys. Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan. Who cares.
5
"No gifts larger than your head." That would include the Hope Diamond.
8
Yes, this is a tragic story of a young naïve gullible woman whose employment was questionable, seduced by an adulterer and enabled by editorial staff whose HR failed their own courses. The outcome: their personal records are seized as evidence, then the lovers are fired and indicted.
Meanwhile, the Liar in Thief is allowed to lie six times a day; continue to financially profit from his presidential role; threaten the department of Justice’s investigation into his relationship with Russia; tamper with key witnesses and obstruct justice by promising the accused pardons during the investigation; and his tax records, most likely evidence of money laundering and tax fraud, remain hidden. Hello!
The title, “How an Affair Between a Reporter and Security Aide Has Rattled Washington Media” spends way too much time on the woman’s skirts and very little time addressing the chilling wind to the media.
This president regards political challengers as his enemies and he believes he has the authority – a mandate by the GOP – to use his position and administration to attack the press. Using such tactics to freeze-out a free press that adds strong fears to would be whistle-blowers, should make us all shudder.
Cliché is more readable, so let’s continue to read about and beat-up the girl and make hay from a committee staffer’s affair.
7
I guess none of the various news organizations Ms. Watkins worked for asked this question: How is a 23-year-old recent intern getting information veteran reporters on the beat since before she was born can't match? As all her 'scoops' fit neatly within an anti-administration context, that apparently fit the 'don't ask, don't tell' category of newspaper ethics.
But buried in this dense, convoluted effort to mitigate the sordid surrender of journalistic ethics is the answer: "Mr. Wolfe gave another young female reporter covering the Intelligence Committee some valuable information then sent her a series of personal nighttime texts. She deflected his inquiries and never got another tip from him."
This story is no more complicated than that. A 57-year-old, married, pudgy bureaucrat is looking for a young woman to sleep with. He uses the only bait he has. She takes it. Had she not, her career wouldn't have exploded, and several laws might not have been broken. Anyone who thinks various editors weren't at least vaguely aware of what was happening is out of touch with reality.
29
Come on, New York Times, this unfolding mess was avoidable and represents yet another strike against you. Wasn't the Judy Miller debacle bad enough? Or that infamous October 31, 2016 article you posted, co-authored by Eric Lichtblau, that exonerated Trump regarding the FBI's investigation of him, yet which later turned out to have been false information, since he was and is still under FBI investigation? Even your ombudsperson criticized you on that, we've never seen a retraction, nor have we gotten a clear answer about where that false information helping Trump came from. At the very least, hire an ombudsperson again, and **listen** to her/him/them and try to fix what's ailing your paper.
16
Uh, wasn’t this the first season of “House of Cards?” I hear that show got abruptly cancelled.
7
So wait...the NYT continues to employ Ms. Watkins but can’t get her on the record for this story? This after hiring her even after she discloses highly unethical relationships?
And YOU want to be our ethics watchdog?
39
She disclosed the unethical relationship. No problem with the hiring staff.
She disclosed the government sniffing around. Again, no problem.
She did not disclose getting caught, complete with a search warrant. That is a problem for the editors. Only that.
3
@ Mark T.
Unethical relationships are "no problem" when hiring a journalist? The government investigating your journalist...also no problem? Wow.
That's an interesting set of non ethics you have. Because I was a journalist for 20+ years, and trust me, I would not have been hired...or would have been fired on the spot.
1
Chris - My point was that the hiring staff knew, but had no problem, until they got caught. Then they blamed her, as if worldly and experienced hiring staff had no idea, no way to guess.
NYT:
I take your position as a gatekeeper of democracy quite seriously.
Perhaps your editors should do the same.
28
How much of the tut-tutting and stern judgement in some of these posts is because the reporter was young and brilliant and beautiful... and a woman? Every step of the way she checked with a senior person at the place of her employment and was given the green light. And she was coming up with some very important and necessary reporting. She was doing so well and the line got so blurry that she didn't really know whether she crossed it or not.
The major harm done is that she has given Trump a stick to beat the media with. Not even a stick - more like a slim and leafy branch but beat up on the media he will, cheered on by all who enjoy that sort of thing.
We live in a binary time when either you think Trump is a vile blot on the face of democracy or you support him in his ignorance, greed, sexism and racism. History will not be kind - that is, if the freedom to write actual history survives. Maybe Ms Watkins will be seen in the future as one of the heroes of our time or at least a martyr to the cause of freedom of information. I just hope democracy survives and if it does, it will be thanks to people like Ms Watkins who didn't play it safe, who took risks and lived a life she believed in. I agree that in the right hands, at the right time, this could be one heck of a good movie.
3
"How much of the tut-tutting and stern judgement in some of these posts is because the reporter was young and brilliant and beautiful... and a woman?"
I'm a woman and a feminist and I disagree with you. This story is about bad choices and bad ethics all around.
24
"She was doing so well and the line got so blurry"
She was young, inexperienced, and swimming in very deep water. That is why she had and needed mentors and editors -- who now blame her.
6
It is striking to me that the authors of this piece and many people they interview or quote speculate wildly that Ms. Watkins “exchanged sex for information,” and condemn her for it, while remaining silent on the possibility that Mr. Wolfe exchanged information for sex. Why the sexist attitude, NYT?
6
Um, Mr Wolfe has lost his job and his marriage, was investigated by the FBI, and charged.
Ms Watkins is on vacation after 6 months at her new job at the New York Times.
Exactly what sexist attitude are you referring to?
19
He is going to prison. She just might lose her job.
6
So, women trade sex for power and men trade power for sex? WHO KNEW??
10
So, a woman of 26 has risen to senior correspondent. In all of what, 4 years, 5 years?!!! Seems to me that the NYTimes and all of the media that hired and promoted this 'rising star' are now suspect. I say that as a senior correspondent spends years, and sometimes decades working in lower jobs to attain this level. No one can convince me that the editors 'believed' that somehow this kid was brilliant and had a crystal ball. Not only should she be barred from journalism of any kind, she should be indicted. Please, stop making Trump right!!!
36
Don't dump it all on her. She disclosed, to editors and mentors of vastly more experience. They knew what she had, and they could read between the lines as well as or better than any very experienced reporter just what was going on. If she "should have known" then how about the people with so much more experience who were overseeing her? They liked what they got, promoted her, and took more.
4
Unbelievable! Ali Watkins owed it to her employer, The Times, to let them know once her records had been seized, legal advice or not. Attorneys are not infallible advice-wise. She is college-educated, and she ought to know better. This was solely about ethics, and she failed woefully.
That in itself is a fireable offense. The Times' credibility is a little dented by association with this mess. No wonder Trump rails about the media negatively.
The Times should investigate Ali Watkins' reportings, then send her on her way to a new job elsewhere.
And for her to say that she did not use Wolfe as a source is, in my opinion, a bald-faced lie.
21
If Wolfe was not her source, he was very likely a major part of her entre to those who were her sources.
4
Great reporting by the Times—except on the one issue closest to them. The young reporter was mixing business with pleasure—or was it all business, to her? In any event, certainly the Times doesn’t regard this as ethical journalism. So why did the Times hire her or, if she didn’t reveal this mess in the hiring process, why didn’t they fire her? If the answer is that she was so valuable that justified overlooking all of her issues, then sadly they are descending into the same swamp as the others. Times—we rely on you to uphold these standards, don’t let us down.
16
What a bizarre statement, that relations with sources are "an art, not a science." Here, we seem to be talking about a relationship that appears to have been a transaction, no art or science involved.
19
What about a woman's right to an affair when she wants one? Are men questioned? Why should women account for being female?
Oh my, the list of questions . . .
However, since Ms. Watkins is a woman, I really don't think there is anything we can do. I can't think what; I mean, the other day, I said, "Eva's a (meaning Eva Braun) witch!" The woman next to whom I was speaking, knowing of whom I was speaking, objected vigorously in Eva's defense, saying, "A woman's makeup is not an offense!"
I cringed, not knowing what to say.
I'm sure someone knows.
Mr Wolfe was indeed questioned, by the FBI, no less. And charged. And unemployed.
5
Zoe Barnes' story should have been a cautionary tale, not an inspiration.
9
Looks to me that there is plenty of culpability to go around. On the other hand, that is what happens when you have human beings running things...and reporting on things. We are none of us perfect.
4
Surprised there isn't much conversation about the agenda of the "leaker".
It's not like they're handing over the whole trove of messy, real world material to create an independent perspective.
Leaker has an agenda, cultivates relationship with reporter to be their 3rd party mouthpiece (as 3rd party journalistic integrity has long since gone out the window if the clothes have come off). Not too different from what we're hearing with Peter Strzok (although he was having his affair with a colleague rather than reporting sources from what we currently know).
Or do we expect balanced, critical leaks from paramours due to their high ethical standards?
5
This article's frequent allusions to high-minded notions of journalistic ethics and standards are misplaced. The only rule of journalism in the Trump era is there are no rules, and anything goes, whether with the left or right wing news media. The Times led the charge in this regrettable direction in September 2016. That's when its Executive Editor announced on NPR that he had green lighted having his staff simply refer to anything Trump said as a "lie," if the staff thought that was warranted. No further justification needed. It's a lie. He's a liar. Moving on then. This upended decades of journalistic practice requiring, at a minimum, if the pejorative of "liar" was used, that the reasons why or how the liar was lying had to be explained. Not so anymore for the Times or other mainstream outlets that followed suit. The young reporter in the crosshairs of this controversy should be judged by these current lax to nonexistent standards, not by what used to be but is no more.
4
"Last fall, after Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe had broken up and while she was still reporting on the intelligence committee for Politico, she briefly dated another staff member at the committee, friends said."
Sounds like sleeping with sources is Ms. Watkins' modus operandi.
12
So what if Ms. Watkins slept her way to get information and stories? The Times was very happy to get the information and the story in The Times. Ms. Watkins was very happy to become a star on the back of her relationship with Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe was happy to get Ms. Watkins into bed. Everybody seemed happy with the relationship. Except the federal government, which represents the American people.
12
"...the federal government, which represents the American people."
Most of this administration does not represent me or my values. I can wish it did.
Noted, character is important to myriads of anonymous Republican commenters who neither value character nor apply character to or for a Republican chief executive. Week after week, month after month, year after year. No further questions.
6
I'm not sure what an "active" source is, but this story reports Watkins "would make a mental note of tidbits he mentioned offhand, or gossip with him about Capitol Hill, or throw out a fact and gauge his reply." That is working a source 101, something reporters do all over Washington every day.
8
If only they created “mental notes,” then he would not be on the path to federal prison. Note to self to follow Paul Sorvino’s advice in Goodfellas. about discussing criminal activities ( update for 2018): do not use phones and do not text.
2
In addition to Trump's preoccupation with leaks, the media, the Russian investigation, etc., there's also his preoccupation with women much younger than him. So I guess this all just fits right in.
2
The CEO of Intel was forced to resign yesterday because of a violation of a 20 year old zero tolerance policy prohibiting inter office dating that occurred before he became CEO.
Their 20 year old policy is more progressive than the NYTimes and the other 3 media companies Ms. Watkins worked for as a result of taking her word at face value.
It’s pretty apparent that when it comes to protecting their ethics reputations, these progressive companies are still in the last century. Time to lean “forward” if ethics matter. If.
11
Most people who are not reporters or editors of newspapers see this for what it is... an young woman uses sex to her advantage and plays an aging old man for the fool old men can be when it comes to young women. And if you need any further proof of Ms. Watkins motives, just notice who she took up with when she was done with Mr. Wolfe... another staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
10
And the 'aging old man' started to attempt to woo another young female journalist afterwards. Both are playing the game.
10
So journalists are human and fallible after all, even if they work for the NYT, WP et al....so much for “undisclosed-reliable-sources-wanting-to-preserve-anonymity”. My trust in professional journalism, increasingly an oxymoron, has not been the highest for quite some time as far as I’m concerned, anyway.
7
This will be the next series on Netflix. Oh. Did we already see this one? I think they called it House of Cards.
And mix it up with Monica and Martha Stewart. This could be better!
4
Forgive me for veering slightly off course, but after reading this and last weeks FBI IG report, I need to ask if anything is getting done in Washington beyond sending ten thousand text messages a month to the person you’re having an extra marital affair with?
13
No. No,there is not.
3
It sure looks like she parlayed her relationship to get her scoops and this explains her meteoric rise -
has anyone verified that she didn't use him as a source?
it's just her word?
did he tip her off? pass information to girlfriend to help her career ?
this story makes it seems like that is what happened
how exactly did the corey L story come to her?
send him to jail for using his job to get secure a young girlfriend
fire her for lying and sleeping with a source to get ahead
how about all the other journalists who weren't putting out to get their tips??
3
With so many power couples , and other family members ( Rhodes brothers as an example) in Media and government, any claim that the editors are able to or even want to avoid such " scoops" is unbelievable to most of us. Somehow the editors are reporters are able to avoid the " implicit bias" while the rest of universe is tainted by it . Ha Ha Ha.....
What's truly amazing about this story is that there are editors and reporters who actually think its ok for a journalist to have an affair with a source (just check out their remarks on Twitter or in this piece those from Mr. Grim or Buzzfeed's Ben Smith, who seem to have no problem with it. And you wonder why journalism is in the tank). Any reporter worth his/her salt knows that's taboo. End of story.
13
Is anyone else shocked that a senior federal intelligence employee, entrusted with our nation's secrets, who swore an oath to protect those secrets, could so cavalierly be referred to as "a helpful source" of those secrets for a cub reporter trying to make a name for herself by walking the halls of Congress looking for a "scoop?" It seems like this is just SOP for media covering government and, I suppose, for those in government looking to impress . . . or worse, trade.
3
Just to set the record straight, no man in historyhas ever given a woman 35 years his junior who was not his duaghter a pearl bracelet as a token of professional esteem.
18
Amen, brother.
3
Maybe one of those Pandora bracelets, but not one of pearls. Never going to happen.
1
I notice that the N.Y. Times called it a "bauble". Why does the Times use language that minimizes the significance of this pearl bracelet. There's not a woman around who doesnt understand what that gift meant.
10
Wow! You tell us in the headline you're going to explain a journalistic scandal, and then instead you post scripts from episodes of the American version of House of Cards? What's going on?
Since when does the Times hire children with virtually no experience to work in the Washington Bureau and cover major national beats? And since when does the Times ignore the fact that that same child has Trumpian ethical standards, and clearly will do and say anything to advance her career?
9
Oh, how Times readers miss Margaret Sullivan as public editor! Or an equivalent. Actually, there is no equivalent.
13
Hey! Maybe it wasn’t a conflict of interest. Maybe she had one interest all along — the story. Adultery poses ethical questions. Sure. She’s not the one breaking a vow to another human being; he is. And we don’t know what private compact he made with his wife. She wasn’t working for the Intelligence Committee; he was. She is press. She never hides the fact that she was in an intimate relationship with him. She discloses to all her employers and she introduces him as her boyfriend when the pair go out socially. It’s not a double standard either. She can even Metoo if she wants to. He was 30 years older and he held all the cards; she just played them, Rookie all fresh faced and eager takes responsibility for what happens. She takes responsibility for what she does. Does that hurt the cause? ‘Cause I like her.
2
Then YOU date her, and tell all your secrets. Which paper do you imagine we’ll be reading them in?
2
The Times. Sugar. Coating corruption. In fairness the media is infiltrated and a tool of the Intell community as well.
7
If Ali Watkins had done the same thing as a Fox News reporter, it would be the number one story in America with everyone calling Fox News out for sexual harrassment, prostitution, sexual assault, etc. And no one would cover the search of her phone records. There could not be a clearer example of biased reporting. Can you imagine Elisabeth Bumiller’s interest if Koch demanded a female sales person win a contract and she said I can get the contract but I have to sleep with the rep from the other company and Koch says I don’t want to know how you get the contract, just do your job. Then Koch learns she started sleeping with the rep and she is promoted with them knowing she is sleeping with him.
3
Imagine if Ali Watkins was a Fox News reporter. It would be the top story in the US and every columnist would want every executive at Fox to be fired. Instead crickets from columnists and op ed pieces.
28
Were Watkins with Fox or any other news rganization it would have been written with the same nuance.
I know you are smarter than to believe that . You are a respected journalist. Surely you write that in jest.
Both of them are idiots.
There are some jobs in which you have to put your duty before your personal life. Journalism and government intelligence are the top two that spring to mind.
These selfish twits have jeopardized the work of many other people.
14
She, to her editors:
"I'm sleeping with a head of security for the Senate Intel Committee and I'm receiving secret info from that Senate Intel Committee, but it's not from the guy I'm sleeping with."
Her editors:
"Oh, if you say so, of course we believe you. Continue good work."
She:
"And now I'm sleeping with another guy from the Senate Intel Committee."
The editors:
"No problem. Now we see it's just your normal working routine."
16
So in May 2014, this young 'genious' of a reporter received a pearl bracelet from an aide to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Her senior year of college. Fast forward 4 years, and she's a senior intelligence reporter for the NYTimes. Anyone see this as suspect, at best?!!! What I'd like at this point is a list of all reporters for the NYTimes, and their ages, year of college graduation, and their titles. My guess is that this paper is now run by the 20 somethings who have no real experience, but are entitled to fast track because of their far left politics. Nice job, NYTimes!
12
If what's implied in this article is accurate, there's no defending Watkins' behavior. That said, Wolfe -- the dirty old man who has been dangling scoops to potential mistresses for who knows how long -- is by far the bigger villain here.
12
Takes 2 to tango. She knew what she was doing. After all didn't the Times make her Senior correspondent? What a joke.
4
The Times and the other media organizations would do well to emulate Intel’s zero tolerance policy instead of merely asking a reporter for her word that she isn’t dating a source, which would result in her termination.
Do you really expect someone to come clean if it costs them their job?
Beyond preposterous. Does the times use air quotes when they say “ethics”?
13
We liberals need to stop pretending that just because we are, that ethics don’t apply to us. Wagging your finger with one hand and getting special privilege with the other is hypocrisy, not the lowest level of hell but close.
36
It’s such a fine line sometimes. For example, there are 2 Presidents implementing the exact same policy.
One is exposed for Crimes against Humanity and the other is ignored.
Decisions, decisions.
9
Seduction of Joe Tynan 2.0, substituting intelligence community for legislature. Looking foward to seeing cinema verite treatment of this scandal on the next episode of The Fourth Estate.
3
A terrifically nuanced piece that really lays out the issues. We live in a time when nuance seems to have disappeared and I for one am grateful for this balanced reporting
5
Ah, the NY Times is working overtime to delete comments that don't fit their narrative. Don't forget, some of us pay for this paper. Ali Watkins had relationships with two members of the Committee staff, was going out on Valentine's Day with another official and claims she wasn't using these guys as sources. Wolfe's wife was a senior FBI official at the time. Maybe the NY Times should look into that. Censorship of legitimate comments only highlights the hypocrisy of the liberal media, who clearly don't like having the spotlight shone back on them. Ali Watkins and Jayson Blair are the symptoms of the disease that riddles left-wing media.
24
"...the NY Times is working overtime to delete comments that don't fit their narrative."
How do you know? Have you seen the deleted comments? I see plenty of aspersions cast upon the NYT in these comments.
1
While we’re busy heaping criticism on a 20-something, ambitious, talented female reporter at the center of some of the most important events of our time for playing fast and loose with journalism and societal ethics, shouldn’t we be asking where the adults in the room were? Didn’t they have some responsibility to guide all that striving and talent instead of using it for their own interests?
Instead the married-with-children trusted veteran of the Senate Intelligence Committee seduced her with pearls and access. The seasoned editors of esteemed publications – at a time when being above reproach was never more important for the “liberal” media – ignored a potential problem with a very young woman “dating” someone on the committee she covers at the same time she is coming up with major scoops only an inside source could have given her. And when the “adults” find out, months after the fact, that her emails and phone records have been seized, what do they do? They allow her to keep her job, apparently. Sigh, indeed.
2
He did not "seduce" her; he paid her, the payment being information, wrongly revealed. Seduction is generally considered noncommercial.
4
I think Ms. Watkins encounter with Mr. Rambo (truth is stranger than fiction) deserves some in-depth reporting itself.
Why in the world is a Customs and Border Patrol Agent contacting and implicitly threatening a reporter who works on intelligence topics, including, ahem, the Russia investigation? Ali Watkins broke an important story about Carter Page's Russian links a couple of months before Rambo showed up.
We know the CPB is full of intense Trump loyalists. I'm sure that no one in Trumpworld would ever dream of encouraging a sympathetic law enforcement officer to go rogue on a Trump enemy. Heaven forfend. But the Times should look into it. You know, just to make sure.
8
Is it just me or is EVERYONE mentioned in this article creepy, scary, and completely unethical? I'm paraphrasing but the editors knew she was having this weird affair and hired her anyway? Did they assume she'd get scoops from the leaky old leaker?
Did Senate investigators/Senate Staff know their employee was "dating" a very young reporter? And if so, did they want information out?
Is it just me or did the Kate Mara character from "House of Cards" come to mind? It's all terrifying and repulsive at the same time... a wonderful combo.
20
I can only ask: What was she thinking? How a well-educated woman enter into such a relationship in today's Washington is beyond understanding. Career suicide for no future with a married man. What a waste.
16
Educated women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2016...they make mistakes all the time!
3
The New York Times should have been "rattled" most of all. Its standards should be the highest, but many warning signs which would not doubt have been noticed by good journalists went unheeded, or ignored (why?) in this case. Will heads roll at the Times? The article suggests a few candidates.
9
For people stating this shows 'problems' with the #MeToo movement, let's be clear. This has NOTHING to do with #MeToo, which is about sexual harassment or sexual abuse. This was a consensual relationship where both parties seemed to use each other knowingly and willingly. There was no abuse or harassment, just lots of bad judgment.
13
This reporter has appalling personal judgment. Seriously, there was no one else to date but committee members? And she doesn't care if the guy is married?
Also, "preplanned" is a ridiculous phrase.
12
Ms. Watkins violated some wise standards when she decided to (1) get involved with a married man who knows how to lie (especially to a spouse) and (2) let EZ-romance compromise her ability to earn money. She should be smarter than that; her editors sound dumb, too.
6
So many bad decisions here...
6
How convenient that Ms. Watkins is on a pre-planned vacation roughly six months after starting with the NYT. With everything swirling in the wind, was she even working full time?
Maybe the Grey Lady should hire older individuals who have gone to graduate school for journalism instead of obviously overeager folks who chose the field as their undergraduate major. (It's like those schools that have majors like pre-law or pre-med- you won't find those at any top ranked university.)
Thanks for giving the enemy so much cannon fodder and other ammunition while they prepare for war against the media and the first amendment. Heckuva job! Speaking of jobs, some folks at the NYT should be losing theirs . . .
18
Here's precisely what the Times said in its earlier story about the recently-hired Ms. Watkins:
"Ms. Watkins is set to leave on a previously planned vacation, said Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman."
"Previously planned," as if we're expected to believe that redundancy.
This from a newspaper that screams "lies lies lies" daily in its coverage of the Trump Administration.
3
gad what a mess. my concern is the Border Patrol guy interrogating her. what's up with that?
2
There’s a Putin chew toy?
6
Probably made by the same company that makes a Trump chew toy.
I thought this was why reporters should only fool around with fellow reporters? (Reader, I married one.)
4
re: Reader comments about editor not asking for more specifics about the journalist boyfriend. Most organizations have disclosure requirements for employees going out with each other. But there are also fairly strict rules regarding what you can ask a potential job candidate. For example, you are not allow to ask one's marital status, one's sexual orientation or dating history, especially whether a candidate plan to get marry and have children.
That said, Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe knowing got involved in a form of "dangerous liaisions" that may well be fairly common place in DC. Unfortunately both their careers and professional reputation would be forever tarnished.
3
Mr. Wolfe has more to fear than a tarnished reputation. He could spend most of the rest of his life wearing a jumpsuit provided by DOJ with his personal number stenciled on it, a heavy fine and loss of all pension benefits. I hope she was worth it.
8
You are allowed to show the employee a code of conduct and get signed verification that they have been in compliance. You cannot grill them, but you can immediately terminate them if you subsequently find a falsehood. I would expect prominently listed in a reporter’s code of conduct is not to have a relationship with anyone involved in a story you work.
4
Wow, the NYT is only just now realizing that people had a problem with this. It colors all your past stories involving anonymous sources. We have to wonder about the nature of your reporters’ relationships with those sources. I’m sure most are legit, but you have forced us to doubt.
These are lies of omission, almost as bad as the outright lies of Jayson Blair. At least in that case you published an in-depth chronicle of what had gone wrong.
The saddest part about this is that the rule book was right there in your own history, in the legacies of past editors. But you have rested on your laurels so long, you really don’t understand how big a deal this is. That the phrase, “if it’s in the NYT, you’re the last to know,” is already becoming well worn.
23
Not so cunning naïveté by a young wanna-be journalist and a sex starved 50 year old. This is a constantly told woman-bites-dog DC story
10
Something tells me that if this was someone leaking to a Fox News reporter during the Obama administration this would have been covered much more aggressively by the NYT. Will be interesting to see if this is "one and done" reporting or if the NYT will continue to investigate this matter.
12
Watkins, Wolfe, and the various editors mentioned: none strike me as MENSA candidates.
Watkins, anything for a scoop.
Wolfe, a predator.
The editors, anything for a scoop.
14
Judith Miller redux.
6
Come on, NYT! Your reporter's conduct was sleazy beyond imagination, and she withheld critical information from you. Those are not gray areas. And to accept her assertion that he was not a source -- give me a break! No one is that native.
28
Clearly Ms. Watkins knew that she was breaking the law. Wolfe was using his position to keep the NYTs up to speed with insider information and keep the headlines coming. The problem is the spin the NYTs wanted to put on these leaks. Since even with this info there still has not been a case for Russian interference in the election.
9
The fact that Ali Watkins is still a national security reporter for The New York Times shows yet again that The Times sets the ethical bar much higher for those that it covers than for itself.
36
I've been a reporter and photographer for large news publications and know that personal relationship between reporters and sources/potential sources happen. Most often quite innocently and without major issue. But it seems that there should've been more editorial checks & balances regarding Ms. Watkins' various relationships within government. The last episode recounted here, the Valentines dinner, also strongly suggests that Ms. Watkins doesn't have the proper relationship filters that would allow her to continue reporting on highly sensitive matters.
15
When the relationship ended, he attempted to woo another young female reporter with tips, and she started dating another guy with security information. That says a lot about both of their characters and about the benefits of their relationship.
24
Obvious case of "reverse" #MeToo. She used sex as a tool for extracting information. Two can obviously play at this game...
13
This was mutually beneficial. Not coercive, not abusive, not #MeToo.
7
What a naive young woman! And what on earth would persuade an educated young reporter to date an unattractive unethical man 30 years older!!!!
Quelle judgement!!!! I’m 65 and won’t go near most of these guys. Eeeeu, and lets see married father of two thinking he can date a girl his daughter’s age and ruin her career!!!!
What a jerk!!!!
8
Naive? Hardly seems so. Conniving is more like it.
6
Dating someone 30 years older or younger than you are is not a crime. Automatically assuming an older person is disqualified from something has a name - ageism.
"Last fall, after Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe had broken up and while she was still reporting on the intelligence committee for Politico, she briefly dated another staff member at the committee, friends said."
She may be a brilliant reporter, in some sense. However, she is obviously severely deficient in either emotional or ethical intelligence, or maybe just common sense.
26
Reporters have personal lives and that doesn't mean they can't do their job or lack emotional or ethical intelligence. It's hard to understand your serious judgement on this woman when you have no idea if she shared information or got information from Mr. Wolff when she was dating him.
The only one who doesn't seem to understand these incestuous conflicts of interest is Donald J. Trump -- daughter, son-in-law working in the WH has proven not to be in the best interest of the American people, but maybe Trump (I think it's more than maybe) lacks emotional and ethical intelligence.
5
This was purely a sexual relationship for 3 years, no pillow talk, no confidences shared by either party. Right.
Please see Mr. Wolfe's communication to Ms. Watkins at the end of the affair:
"I always tried to give you as much information as I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else... I always enjoyed the way that you would pursue a story like nobody else was doing in my hallway... I felt like I was part of your excitement and was always very supportive of your career and the tenacity that you exhibited to chase down a good story." That sounds like a source to me.
Sorry, that still doesn't mean that he leaked anything that was highly classified -- there are leaks and there are leaks. The American people wouldn't know anything without sources often in high places. Mr. Trump and his justice department are acting like a bunch of thugs -- Mr. Trump is a proven liar who has no respect for the Press because he knows they will stay on top of it and let the American people know every dirty deed he does as he systematically tries to destroy their lives one tweet at time.
2
I guess I should have expected that the New York Times would tiptoe around the actions of what turned out to be a most unfortunate hire. Reading the comments of her past colleagues and bosses just makes me shake my head. I guess I wonder if any of these reporters would buy the idea that all of the scoops she came up with while she was involved with Wolfe were just serendipity.
I certainly know if it was any Trump administration official who tried to use a similar story, they would be crucified in the pages of the times, both in the news and editorial sections. And that goes for every other organization Ms. Watkins worked for.
I know it's uncomfortable when the veil is lifted, but I think people have a pretty good idea how things work in Washington.
31
Conflicts of interest are always bad, but I am much more disgusted by a corrupt president who misuses his office to enrich his personal businesses than by this affair.
3
This is a cautionary tale of how newsrooms bend over backwards to promote "the young turks" … a euphemism for what some editors view as the rising young stars of a news organization who they want to mentor … or, who are young and attractive, and, therefore, editors turn a blind eye. I know. I lived this in the newsroom of a major city newspaper where for years editors went out of their way to promote young journalists by giving them the plum assignments … the A1 stories. The young journalist had the narcissistic hubris of youth to believe she would get away with almost anything … and she almost did.
18
Sexual intimacy and intelligence (information) are a tantalizing mix that does require firewalls though I believe human nature will always have a competing agenda. My only surprise is that the subject is not written about more often. House of Cards is one depiction but much too kinky. Danish tv, though, has an outstanding multi year series with this subject front and center. So good and so real that I would not be surprised to see an American version. Put yourself in the shoes of each participant. Given the personal back stories the temptation must be so overpowering that the dynamic gets repeatedly acted out with other players. Will this story have legs? Whether it does or doesn’t, sexual relations will always be part of of how we get our news. Great article.
2
I'm sorry, I don't care what the circumstances are. Reporters should not become romantically entangled, to any degree, with people the reporters are reporting on, or their bosses/politicians. I was a reporter for 25 years, 6 to 7 of those years in DC and almost all 25 of those years covering politics and government. Such relationships were verboten then and should be even more so now. Watkins was just dumb.
18
I agree with everything you said, right up until your last sentence. I don't think she was "dumb" at all; she was using her sexuality to get something she wanted. Her behavior was unethical, and so was Wolfe's.
9
NYT - please explain if her vacation is really a vacation or is she on leave
and if so is it paid or unpaid?
who gets a job in december and goes on vacation in june?
maybe a short one -
but i recall at least a week or two ago this was the exact same line
she is on vacation
really? still?
when is she due back?
what are you planning to do? keep her?
it seems coy to say she is on vacation -
also - it's not clear if she cooperated with this story - please explain
37
All good questions
It would seem the Times is waiting to see how both these posts and the response in general plays out before they decide
Surely the Times can do better than that
5
HOUSE OF CARDS anyone?
6
I'd watch that show and think, "It can't happen really, can it?" (sigh) Yes, it can. (sigh again)
1
How fortunate for Ms. Watkins that the NY Times is willing to stake their journalistic credibility, cultivated since the middle of the 19th century, on the continued employment of a junior reporter with startlingly bad judgment.
This piece, presumably written and published in the interest of full disclosure, does nothing to mitigate the damage, NYT. Ms. Watkins's journalistic credibility and, frankly, personal integrity are in shambles. The damage to the Times's institutional credibility and reputation continues unabated as long as you give Ms. Watkins column-inches and a paycheck.
It seems to me that Ms. Watkins's failure to immediately disclose the government seizure of her correspondence to her employer, despite being done on the advice of counsel, provides sufficient grounds for termination.
And, though not the point of my comment, I think Mr. Wolfe should suffer the severest penalties possible based on the terms governing his employment, too - up to and including jail time and the loss of his pension, if appropriate. I feel sorry for his wife.
25
I am sure almost no one outside of journalism ever even thought a journalist would date a person who would even appear to be a source.
Apparently politicians and journalist make routine bedfellows.
And how come he only denied abusing “his first wife” and not any woman ever, which is what a “real man”, since that meaning is also a topic of the day, should be able to truthfully say.
3
What a story. Some time ago I spent time as a bartender and one of the older hands elbowed me one day i indicating a very May-December relationship in a corner booth that was getting pretty torrid. My mentor told me he knew both the man and the woman and that he was married to someone else and that she was an employee in the man's firm. He chuckled and pronounced what I've come to consider a truism about affairs: The participants often think that they are invisible.
Sad to think that not only did Ms Watkins and Mr. Wolfe perhaps feel invisible, but apparently so did a number of Ms Watkin's bosses.
12
Before it would hire Watkins, did the Times demand to know who Watkin’s source was if the reporter claimed it was not Wolfe who give her info for her pre-Times articles?
4
Is this the Times' effort to throw Ali Watkins under the bus to protect itself?
5
Another bad case of editorial-hiring judgement at the NYT. Meantime, Ms Watkins should find herself a new lawyer.
The latest NYT crise is BAD -- all-around !!
15
So Ms Watkins, intrepid intern, hung around hallways, and in doing so earned the trust of people in senior government positions, because nothing says trustworthy like hanging around in hallways.
And they gave her the inside scoop on things way ahead of other journalists because she was so darned...intrepid. And trustworthy, because there she was, in the hallway.
And in the meanwhile fell head over heels for a guy in his 50s--married, no less--who just happened to be head of security of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Because the heart wants what the heart wants.
Right.
Or--she saw herself--tweeted about it--as a character on House of Cards, and began a "romance" with the head of security and they exchanged thousands of text, including ones where he tells her he's so excited to help her with her career and see her get scoops ahead of other journalists.
Glad you're on the ball, NYT. Analyze away.
37
One of the best comments I've ever read.
As an outsider, this episode reinforces the unfortunate feeling that the entire government/media industrial complex is operating as one large, self dealing, self perpetuating, opaque cabal.
23
We still don't teach things like common sense, or professional prudence in colleges and universities, do we. Sadly, this breach of both should rattle journalists; worse, it's munition for unprincipled folks haranguing about press lies that aren't.
7
This is not about the first amendment. This is about multiple crimes and a reporter trading sex for information. Both Watkins and Wolfe should be prosecuted. If reporters and government operatives obey the law and engage in ethical behavior this type of fiasco will not take place and the first amendment will remain alive and well.
5
The echoes of John Dean's book of Watergate days comes to mind reading this account "Blind Ambition".
4
"Mr. Wolfe, 57, was arrested on June 7 and charged with lying to investigators about his contacts with Ms. Watkins"
I strongly suspect that Wolfe told Watkins he was going to lie. If Watkins agreed and did anything to assist Wolfe's lying she conspired with her then boyfriend. Let's say Wolfe told Watkins "I'm going to deny having improper contacts with you and I need you to back me up" and Watkins discretely shook her head -- that's enough. I don't understand why we're talking about indiscretions of Watkins when the real issue is whether she will be indicted.
3
Although I am one of the last persons who would quote Biblical text as a guide to ethical behavior, I can't help demanding from the Press, elected public servants and other persons in a fiduciary role, adherence to the (apocryphal?) command attributed to Thessalonians 5:22 "[it is not sufficient to just] abstain from...evil, but from all appearance of evil....." Obviously, the indiscretion committed by the reporter in question pales in the glare of the brazen flouting and violation of the most basic, fundamental ethical standards for the role of POTUS by its current occupant.
3
When her editors learned of the affair the response should have been "Would you like to cover the Yankees or Mets?"
37
Her NYT DC boss and head of the desk should be put immediately on leave for even bring her with her conniving, duplicitous resume.
5
Or manage our Antarctic bureau.
5
Compassion for either party escapes me.
9
All of the reporters records being seized is very troubling in these times.
However, a reporter who has no personal ethical standards at all. How does one accept that the highest level of professional standards were maintained?
11
Scoundrels gonna scoundrel but you would have liked someone along the way to display some decent judgment.
A young reporter scores some remarkable scoops, reveals she's romantically involved with someone who has access to sensitive intelligence information but her editors keep her on the beat because she assures them this person is not her source?
Not a great look for the news organizations involved.
16
Mr. Wolfe needs to go to jail for an extended time. Ms. Watkins dating him and another Intel Committee staffer later is very telling. In effect she is exchanging sex for information, whether she recognizes it or not. I don't think the NYT should condone this type of behavior. Her hiding the seizure of her records from the NYT is also a major failure on her part. If the NYT wants to maintain credible standards of integrity and professionalism for its journalist, she needs to be dismissed.
15
Dear NYT - is this a way to vindicate yourself for hiring a person claiming you had no prior knowledge?
As for this article - so many men sleep with women and abuse their power. Kudos to this woman for doing the same ! Very smart girl. Keep it up.... while you’re young climb that ladder !
6
No. It makes it harder on women who do not want to sleep with men for advancement.
9
Now the MSM hires "undercover agents." It would be sad, if it were not so funny.
3
What was HE thinking? Oh, This looks like a good idea for senior senate staff!
....“No one will find out... though I know my communications are monitored, I’m watched by the press, and I’m at the pinnacle of my career. If a young woman bats her eyes at me.. me, too!”
4
Let me get this straight- this woman used her sexual prowess to seduce an older man in order to further her career?
I am shocked. Shocked.
If you want to know older men are scared of younger women these days, it's simple- if she gets what she wants, then you have been duped (and sexually assaulted, but that's a debate for a different day) and may be out of a job/marraige at the end of the day; if she doesn't get what she wants, all of a sudden, you get the "Harvey Weinstein" treatment, where she claims that she was coerced bt her work situation to engage in sexual relations.
Either way, guys- keep your office door open; do not go for drinks after work(even in a group), and no after hours phone contact, even if work related.
16
As long as the man does not steal property to further her career, no harm, no foul. Leaking national Security secrets without Presidential or deputized subordinate’s authorization is theft of the highest order. That man will going to the big house. Passing stolen secrets should be no different than passing stolen jewelry.
5
I thought those were always the rules. No closed doors, always have a witness, and no fraternizing with people you manage. Period.
12
Yeah, and don't give young women pearl bracelets.
9
What's fascinating and disturbing about this story is how senior editors at a string of the most prominent MSM publications -- HuffPo, Politico, and the NYT -- all consistently and systematically suspended their better judgement when confronted with the troubling facts Ms. Watkins herself provided to them. I'm disappointed that the NYT - cognizant of the accumulating damage to its once-sterling brand -- is not casting a more critical eye on its actions and the actions of the other publications. In another era, editors would have been sacked, reassigned, or otherwise demoted for the grave sin of putting the very reputation of the entity at risk.
Criticism from the Right will surely say that these publications are ideological fellow travelers and that, in fact, their behavior was consistent with their desire to dig up dirt on the GOP/Trump at all costs, even if it meant being grotesquely hypocritical about the very social justice agendas they push relentlessly.
Critics might also say there is a whiff of panic to this piece, in the sense that the internal contradictions of the increasingly hard Left ideological agenda the NYT is the standard-bearer for are catching up with it and its allies in the MSM.
22
Good comment. But at least we know that none of these publications has printed Fake News. Haha
They hired someone they knew had the truth from the Source. Everyone wants to SELL the news and win a Pulitzer at any cost. Disgusting.
1
Despite the "balanced" window dressing, the use of phrases like "MSM" gives you away. And from what I can see, one major reason the Times seems to have moved so far to the left is that the lies and main liars who are telling them have moved so far to the right.
This is a tawdry story that belongs in a supermarket tabloid, but then again so much of journalism now is of the tabloid variety.
In addition to the questions about personal morality (using personal relationships to advance career goals), each of the principals here grossly violated their respective codes of professional ethics in not maintaining a proper, objective distance between their conflicting professional roles.
It is also surprising that the NYT would get caught by surprise again in this type of matter. In a similar controversy 15 years ago, much of the debate regarding Judith Miller's controversial Iraq War reporting on the phantom "weapons of mass destruction" revolved around the fact that she apparently had a less-than-arm's length relationship with Scooter Libby, one of her primary government sources.
This is a shameful episode for all involved.
10
Re: " has made journalists, and particularly women, vulnerable to unfounded accusations of exchanging sex for information. "
Every single editor quoted in this story believed Ms. Watson that her high official security official was not the source of her amazing series of scoops.
No, the truth was that her stories were hurting President Trump's administration, and editors, including NYTimes editors, are all members of "The Resistance," eager to use any means to bring him down.
The NYTimes coverage of Trump has disgraced the paper's once proud 150-year history.
13
The Trump coverage of this paper and the Washington Post are two of the rare last beacons of hope shining in this new dark age. This contretemps is a stain, but not a breakage, in my opinion.
I have been very critical of the NYT in the past of being a too insulated group of writers that over time have fairly transparent biases. Also critical in times like this of not having a public editor to objectively address what is a very significant issue concerning not just a single reporter...but the profession. Ali should not be judged singly on what occurred after she started at the NYT in December. It is pretty clear what happened here prior to her employment (none of us were born yesterday!)...and ones journalistic ethics (like most things) are not going to get better over time...but likely worst. I certainly feel sorry for the journalists (particularly the female reporters) that have a slower career path because they have chosen to take the moral, ethical road....That said...from a trump supporting occasionally (mostly) NYT bashing reader--kudos for putting this story out in such detail, very factually based, objective, etc....and done in such a way so that the reader can draw ones own conclusions. It must certainly be hard for reporters to critique there own...but it was warranted in this case, as it was in the Glenn Thrush matter. My own thought...Ali is young but old enough to have known better; likely only made it to the NYT at such a young age because of her actions; unfortunate...but this is a firing offense; as much as I sometimes hate this paper...it is the paper of record and must act as such and swiftly.
10
I agree, the NYT did a good job here and must be belatedly commended for honesty
Why on earth was a Border Protection agent questioning this journalist? His employer has referred the matter to their Office of Professional Responsibility. Was this a rogue agent? Are there other agents within Border Protection who are taking on investigative tasks outside of their authority? Why? At whose direction?
8
Ms. Watkins should not be working for the NYTimes. She has violated a very basic rule - do not fraternize with your sources. How everyone bought into her evasions and her willingness to continue to evade does not augur well for sustaining confidence in the press. The news media is beleaguered enough- this will only enable the Trumps even more.
27
In my opinion, both Ms. Watkins and Mr. Wolfe blew it badly. Yes, important issues of press credibility are at stake, and I'm sure that this situation will be blowing up into the next "big bright shiny object" that will distract from the root issues of Trump occupying the White House. Both principals in this tragicomedy should have known better, but I also fault Ms. Watkins' editors along the way for letting her probable indiscretions slide. No matter the effectiveness of her ability to compartmentalize her life, and acknowledging that extramarital sex is rampant in Washington, the appearances that this affair projects now cast a larger and more harmful shadow than they should to the detriment of us all.
10
This will certainly have an impact on continued freedom of the press, if tRump gets his tiny hands on it.
5
Age 23 with 4 job offers in 3 years and my 24 year old is still living in the basement, Either she’s the most talented reporter of her generation or the news organizations who hired her aren’t really totally on board with their ethical standards.
Call me cynical, but I believe both Ms. Watkins and her employers all knew what they were getting.
80
Ms. Watkins behavior, and the behavior of the media companies for which she worked, does not pass the smell test.
Readers cannot tell with certainty whether or not Ms.Watkins had a true romantic relationship with Mr. Wolfe, or if she slept with him in exchange for valuable access and stories. Their relationship started when she was starting her career, Mr Wolfe was 31 years her senior and married, and was director of security for the Senate intelligence committee. Their relationship ended when Mr. Wolfe retired from his job. Ms. Watkins tweeted comments making analogies between herself and Zoe Barnes, the fictional young reporter in “House of Cards” who traded sex for access; Mr. Wolfe tweeted that he would provide Ms. Watkins with stories before others. These tweets are reported elsewhere. Ms. Watkins wrote many surprisingly well informed stories, and her career flourished.
The evidence that Ms. Watkins traded sexual favors for access is surely credible. The various news media that hired her, including the Times, exercised extraordinarily poor judgement.
As for Mr. Wolfe, he likely broke the law, and should be held accountable. Leaks from government workers may be the lifeblood of the media and in some cases help the public interest, but one of the few things Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama agree on is that such leaks interfere with the workings of government, and sometimes seriously jeopardize national security. Here, too, there must be an accounting.
45
I feel a little bad saying this but I think it's relevant: She seems reasonably nice looking from the photo. It seems unlikely that she wouldn't get interest from young men her age in regular social circles. It's not like the aging Mr. Wolfe was the best she could do if she just wanted romantic companionship.
2
Maybe if government were more transparent, there would be fewer problems with leaks.
I am not entirely sure as to what highly sensitive information was leaked and if the "leak" affected anything at all. (PS this is one reason big mouth Trump has a following. What's left to leak? It's all out there.
2
In light of Mr. Wolfe's reported subsequent effort to solicit favors from another female reporter by offering her tips about the secret workings of his employer, no one but the willfully blind could reasonably believe he was not a source for Ms. Watkins, her understandable denials notwithstanding. The apparent acceptance of those denials at face value by those responsible for hiring and supervising her was what disappointed me the most. I expected better from the Times.
The Times has not only shot itself in the foot in this matter, but also has given ammunition to the most dishonest and corrupt president in the history of our nation to use in his wretched campaign to vilify the press and to end any pretense of truthfulness in governance.
I frankly don't understand how journalists can ethically countenance romantic or sexual relationships with their sources. Lawyers, psychiatrists and other professionals prohibit such relationships because they constitute conflicts of interest or even the appearance of such conflicts. Why should reporters be exempted from such conflicts of interest?
At a time when the media's credibility is under its greatest threat and attack by sleazy politicians and pundits, and when truthful reporting must compete with "fake news", the last thing we need are journalistic ethics that give even a faint whiff of a possible conflict of interest between reporters and their sources. There should be bright lines, not the vague ones Ms. Watkins crossed.
68
Just like in a casino, she was playing with house money, the dealers happy for the tips, she's laughing behind their backs, rolling the dice and rolling the dice, until surveillance said, "step away from the table".
17
As a journalist, the significant detail is that Watkins informed her editors, and they approved of her working under those conditions. She went through this with several editors (male and female), of major magazines, so this is the standard of the industry. So she met her ethical responsibilities.
I also believe that the sexual affairs of consenting adults are their own private business, and I have no right to judge them.
Neither does anybody else, unless it comes up in a legal investigation.
11
If this is the industry standard, it's a pretty low bar.
22
The onus needs to be on the employers for taking her self serving word at face value. It’s their reputation that needs to be protected. If news organizations don’t take their ethical responsibilities a little more seriously and back it up with zero tolerance policies, it’s no wonder that used car salesman have higher trust ratings.
8
@Norman,
Baloney. She should be fired, as should editors who didn't exercise a lick of common sense in hiring her. She is free to have relationships with whomever she wishes, but not hold a public trust while sleeping with government officials. Journalists, though they sometimes forget it, do or should hold a public trust. Certainly, the government officials she sleeps with do.
5
It is sad when I read comments on this forum attacking the press and the USA system of laws.
Ask anyone who immigrated to this country from another country where neither the Press nor their system of laws are protected, and you will realize that, the day the press is no longer free and our laws are no longer enforced, that will be the day that all individual freedoms are lost.
I immigrated to this country many, many years ago from a country in South America where 99% of crimes are not prosecuted and their constitution has been rewritten several times. The country in question, Venezuela, is officially the most dangerous country on earth with an inflation rate over 15,000%. Yes, fifteen thousand percent. It has now collapsed into complete chaos.
Those readers who seem so cavalier about condemning the press when it doesn’t suit their political biases, had better be careful what they wish for.
14
I think this is about us wanting to ensure the press stays honest and credible. Relationships like this don't reflect favorably on anyone.
30
His comment does put this episode in perspective. At least in this country, the situation is examined , reported on, and we learn the truth.
‘Suffer the moment, or suffer for life.’
-brand new proverb, old advice.
10
Couldn't he just as easily give away secrets to anyone he has a relationship with ?
3
Not only are the "optics" terrible, the reality is even worse. Trading sex for access by both of these characters is more than a huge mistake in judgment it undermines every professional accomplishment for either of them. They are perfect examples of the worst stereotypes - the lecherous man with power and the young woman willing to trade her attentions for access to it. Nothing surprising here, just people behaving badly as they often do.
58
Much more is at stake here than rules about sharing classified info and the boundaries of journalism.
At its heart, this is about the tyrannical Trump administration trying to drive a wedge between journalists and federal bureaucrats who want to do the right thing. This is about an attempt to destroy the love between two sides of the same coin.
The alt-right also does this when they try to call these people the “Deep State.”
It has to stop! Same as the attacks against the lovers at the FBI who texted about trying to stop Trump from being elected.
We have a right to live, and to love. And it’s no secret that people who love the same things and hate the same things are going to love one another. Who cares about roles, age, and “progressional conduct” in the face of LOVE?!?
5
Wait, there is something not completely processed in your post; it's President Trump's fault she engaged in a relationship with this man?
I know what you are trying to say. The end is to eliminate Mr. Trump by whatever means necessary and if we are going to have to break rules, then so be it.
There is another solution without breaking the whole thing, hear me out, present better solutions and have the voters decide who should be the next President.
21
BRAVO, F1Driver in Los Angeles.
Thank you. Exactly. If people allow their disgust of Trump to influence their duties and ethics, then it doesn't matter who wins (whatever that means.) Everyone loses.
1
Would make a great movie!
4
Is this related to #MeToo? Did this young woman actually want to date a 50-year-old man, or did she become sexual with him to advance her career?
18
It's definitely related. It is one of many nails in the coffin of the #MeToo movement.
1
What do you think? It was his personal magnetism? Not. A. Chance.
3
If the Washington media and the New York Times had a shred of self-awareness, they might look at this case and begin to understand why a diminishing pool of people believe anything they write or say. All of the "journalists" involved with this case, who covered for Watkins at Huff Post, Buzzfeed, Politico, even the esteemed NYT, come out looking seedy and compromised. Us little people are expected to accept that your job really is just like "House of Cards," then, eh? Everyone sleeps with their sources in the D.C. media. It's what you gotta do to get ahead. It's not compromising at all. It's almost like a demagogue could come along and say it's all fake news.
56
This is clearly the other side of #metoo. Using your looks and talents to get what you want from an older man is taudry, unethical, immoral... and potential illegal. Do they not have ethics courses in J school?
19
MeToo is about sexual assault or harassment. It's not about consensual relationships no matter how unethical or tawdry.
10
It's disappointing that the Times would write an article about one of its own in such a lurid way. Women have forever been accused of obtaining success through their sexual prowess, and I don't think this article helps.
4
What would also help s women not trying to have it both ways.
Hmmm, but you haven't engaged with the notion that Ms. Watkins actually was obtaining success in part through sex. (Not sure what "prowess" she may or may not have had)
3
I did not find the article lurid. If anything, the article minces too delicately around the fact that the young woman traded sex and affection in return for information that led directly to career advancement, and that editors at a number of publications raised few objections as long as the scoops continued coming in. Of course the truth is that attractive women have been using this technique for personal and professional advancement since time immemorial; this kind of transaction between women and older or more powerful men is hardly news to anybody who works in an office or factory. What's interesting is that Jennifer S seems to think it is The Times' responsibility to advance the narrative that such interactions do not happen, and to suppress the truth of this particular story. I would hope The Times will continue to attempt to portray the world as it is, with all the contradictions and contrariness that ensue.
4
It seems to me that the Times has missed the real story here. Ms. Watkins behaved correctly, for the most part; being a reporter does not involve a vow of celibacy and sleeping with a source is not the problem. The real issue is that, "Ms. Watkins later went back to the bar and obtained a receipt with the man’s name on it: Jeffrey A. Rambo, a Customs and Border Protection agent stationed in California." How can the Trump Administration rationalize using a California border patrol agent as a do-it-yourself 007?
14
The CIA has been advertising for 'paratroopers willing to go into other countries' or something like that - on the radio - I feel like it is a joke. Since when does the CIA use paratroopers?
Mr. Steen: reread the article. Mr. Wolfe (not Mr. Rambo) relished the clandestine nature of his work — using “jimwolfe007” as his personal email address
Please go to Wikipedia and look up Special Activities Division of the National Clandestine Service. It is not a secret.
Why should we require ethics here? Because Trump sits in the Oval Office and simultaneously ignores and demands it?
When the greatest symbolic exemplar scoffs while gourging at the public trough, making up facts while swapping ideas with Putin, Hannity and the National Enquirer, why should we care about journalistic ethics?
11
Because two wrongs don't make a right.
5
rds in Florida, Every news report is not related to Donald Trump, though it may appear that way on some days. This episode needs to be understood on its own merits. Some Americans seem to need to elevate Trump to a superhuman, omnipresent dimension, i.e, the devil.
3
Do you realize how incredibly short-sighted that argument is? "Oh, the other guy is worse, desperate times call for desperate measures", etc. Please. Ends don't justify means. Ever.
My concern is this: once Trump is gone (and he will be gone, eventually), people are going to wake up and look around them and think, "what the heck just happened here?" Some of them will be able to say they stuck to their ethics and their responsibilities, and others will not. When that happens, people will have to ask themselves why they allowed one man to enrage them so much they became something they no longer recognize.
5
Ok, so just lock them both up and let's get back to the most pressing question...
Where are the thousands of immigrant little girls and the babies who were taken away from their mothers?
3
Her editors should have removed from the beat, pronto. Your credibility is damaged for sake of a "scoop." Just possibly, they knew of it all along, and just turned a blind eye to her indescretions. With the First Amendment under continous assault, it's a no-brainer what Ms. Watkins should have done.
36
"She asked an editor for advice, and was told that as long as the gift was not exorbitant — no stock in a company, the editor joshed — it was fine."
Stop there. NYT, this is when the editor should have said to the young journalist: "No. I never accept any gift from likely newsmakers."
Instead, "Ms. Watkins kept the bracelet." Thus she and her early mentor helped to damage your newspaper's credibility.
Listen, NYT, we need you to work really hard to restore credibility in your profession. People look to the "Gray Lady" as a defender of our First Amendment, which is under great attack right now. Get your house in order. I'm not joshing.
185
I agree with you about the accepting the bracelet. A definite no-no. But it was not the NYT she was working for then, in May 2014.
17
Immaturity is evident throughout this description of someone who rose too far too fast in news circles, though judgment is one of the rarer human intellectual capacities
at every age.
1
I find this odd. When I worked in PR at a major academic medical center and was working with a reporter, I couldn't even pick up the cost for a tuna sandwich from the hospital cafeteria. The reporter told me that she was not allowed to accept it.
5
Ali Watkins does not deserve sympathy. At 22, you know the possible meaning of a luxury piece of jewelry from a man. She demonstrated her knowledge of the gift's implication when she sought guidance from her employer. That act showed cognizance of the possibility of inappropriateness. Wrongly, her employer gave her a wink & nod when he should have advised her to be above reproach. I wonder if he was thinking about the possible secrets to be had from Wolfe's interest in Watkins?
If anything, this approval may have set her on the path to road she now travels because the approval conveyed that you could take gifts from potential sources interested in romance and benefit professionally. She didn't like Wolfe but he liked her and by accepting the gift she sent mixed signals which she must own. What, she didn't reject the gift because of his status and power???? Or she didn't want to hurt his feelings???
Ali Watkins & women who trade quid pro quo in this way turn the #metoo movement on its head and exemplify the underbelly. Unfortunately, there are women who play on mixed messaging and do trade for advancement in their profession. And for everyone of these women, there are tons who work just as hard and are just as deserving but have to stand by and watch this charade.
42
A number of good points. I think both the article itself and the implication of your comment which focused on the fact that she was not interested initially in a relationship with Mr. Wolfe speak for itself. Further the fact that she started a second relationship (the breaking news in this article) at some point with someone on the Intelligence Committee suggests she has not learned anything. To be fair, Mr. Wolfe deserves similar blame...either the DOJ misrepresented what happen in the complaint...or he admitted to lying to the FBI...he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...the only one I feel sorry for is poor Carter Page who keeps getting roped into everyone else's messes!
1
This sentence is the one that confounds me the most:
"The Times is also reviewing her decision, on advice of her personal lawyer, not to immediately tell her editors about a letter she received in February informing her that her records had been seized."
32
Wow, very poor judgment on everyone's part, including the Trump administration's, as it tries to exploit this incident in order to smear all journalists and push its stupid and imaginary "Deep State" threat.
10
I’m amazed how multiple prospective employers were quick to believe her story that her boyfriend wasn’t a source, when admitting it would disqualify her from employment. There was no point in having a job interview had she admitted it. It’s pretty naive to think she would admit that freely and I suspect her employers weren’t all that upset over the prospect of some ethically suspec reporting.
26
Another young woman falls for an older man and allows her judgment to be impaired by her emotions. It seems that it may be hard to prove that she was not the beneficiary of leaks by Mr. Wolfe as the article implies. This is a personal tragedy for Ms. Watkins and sadly and more significantly just the weapon Donald Trump needs to continue his campaign against the "fake news" media. Ms. Watkins must take the responsibility for her behavior, but her editors also did not display "due diligence" in interrogating her about her relationship. Just another day and another attack on the "freedom of the press"by Mr. Trump aided and abetted by an ambitious, but careless, young woman.
8
This story Christianize one of the many reasons people outside the east and west coast elected Mr. Trump to be their president.
Unfair access.
We've all come to expect unfair access to friends and family whether in DC, NY and LA. The story is the level of access almost entirely to friends, family and paramours.
Many of the regulations imposed during the Obama administration were based on these type of relationships with no real discussion or debate with the American people. They were approved/passed for our own good.
Academicians, journalists/activists met with the Obama administration and other legislators and applied whatever theory they had about the common good and reporting only the benefits and no the consequences. Some of these theories were nutty and the results in real life were catastrophic.
Yes, this story captures the whole swampiness in DC.
12
I don’t think Ms. Watkins made a mistake. She chose who to tell and how much to tell. She knew what she was doing, courtesy of House of Cards.
21
Ms. Watkins made a mistake. But how many of us in our early twenties always acted with perfect judgment?
The bigger issue is that, in this once-great democracy, the only institutions currently protecting us from dictatorship are the media and Robert Mueller's team. Who knew that our country was this fragile?
24
Who among us hasn't slept with someone to get ahead?
Gee, I can think of a lot of people.
93
Ms. Watkins made the same mistake over and over again for 3 years. Pretty poor judgment, I'd say.
30
Talbot, there are people out there who have the talent, merit, skills, experience and to "get ahead".
You describe the problem succinctly, too many ambitious people with little knowledge and no competence to speak of have been artificially promoted to position of power guiding others' efforts. Rhetoric is a poor substitute to results.
There is a predictable result for these agencies.
1
The role of an independent press in a democracy is to keep the people informed of their government's activities (emphasis on "their"). The working assumption nowadays is that virtually everything the people we elect to office do while on the public payroll is secret and not to be shared with the poor slobs who, our rulers assume, prefer bread and circuses.
If Ms. Watkins or any other reporter comes by newsworthy information--that is, information relevant to the citizens of this country in their judgment of the honesty and competency of their elected officials--then these reporters have an obligation to share it.
News outlets can flirt with fashion and movie reviews to make a buck, but the reason they exist is to keep us informed of matters of moment. If the information we readers need is gathered in a hearing room or a bedroom makes no difference: I want to know what the people I pay to represent me are up to.
Isn't it clear what this story is really about? Since Nixon the goal of elected officials has been to make it more difficult for reporters to do their job so that the sneaks and crooks running Washington can go about their shady business undisturbed.
"National security" has become a blanket term used to cover up virtually any government misdeed; people like Watkins are to be commended for shedding light on the dark corners of the current (or any future) administration. Her sex life might titillate some readers, but it is irrelevant to her reporting.
12
This reporter dated a potential source that looks old enough to be her father or grandfather. The reporter admitted to having blurry lines in the relationship and intentionally fishing for reactions to information. In a city of millions, the reporter is now on to dating another committee member.
At what point would this become unacceptable behavior for a reporter? If this is acceptable behavior, and people can use the power of youth and beauty to advance professionally through a romantic route, don't we have to say the reciprocal is fair?
52
this was a fascinating if disturbing report. what I don't understand is how cavalier her editors at McLatchy, Buzzfeed, Politico and yes, the NYT were about her disclosures.
Apparently the desire for scoops trumped their judgment over the appropriateness of the reporters relationships.
its a real mess now, including the fact that the FBI, clearly charged by Christopher Wray and the Trump administration to be aggressive with leaks, has brought on the demand for a reporter's phone and email connections.
Moral of the story: do not date older married sources even if you claim they are not, strictly speaking, sources.
86
All the red flags were there. In real life, green interns don't show up in Washington and start scooping the NYT, WSJ, WP and the major TV networks.
Every editor in her chain of command at each of the organizations where she worked knew or strongly suspected how she did it, but chose to look the other way, because scoops!
Now, we're stuck with defending her on 1st Amendment grounds, though, as Michael Goodwin put it in the New York Post, "It is already clear that Watkins’ highly unethical conduct presents a problem for press defenders. Hers is not the hill they should volunteer to die on.”
29
I wonder was Ryan Grim made aware of the second relationship when he said he trusted her judgement? If he was I am not sure I’d trust his judgement.
22
While reading this article, I found myself wondering WHY Americans aren't MORE UPSET that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are serving as top senior staff members to President Trump? Granted, their situation is a bit different... being that the emotional ties/power plays are that of parent - child. But really... neither Jared or Ivanka are seasoned or experienced government or world advisors. Both of them are rich... largely due to the fact their parents were rich. WHY aren't more citizens, journalists and Fox News Media Players upset about these "unwise" "inappropriate" or certainly impetuous relationships?
16
Good grief, the problems you outline have been covered ad nauseam. Forty-six percent put Trump in charge and he doesn’t care about ethics and conflicts of interests and he is the decider.
11
Sleeping with someone for three years does not fit the term "impetuous."
4
This story is about James Wolfe and Ali Watkins, two now-notorious people who shouldn't have been sleeping together.
Ivanka and Jared are married, so it is pretty much OK for them to be sleeping together. In fact, many people would be concerned if they were not sleeping together.
Not every story in the NYT is about or even related to Trump or his staff or his family members, though sometimes it certainly seems that way. If you have comments about Trump/staff/family you might want to consider sharing them in the comments sections of relevant articles.
2
Even when I was in my 20s I would have been concerned about a "mature" individual in a very responsible security position whose personal email is his name and 007.
226
I doubt this will be published--but, here once again, is the flip side to #MeToo. This reporter used sex to get what she wanted, as did the man in question. Once more, the media's fig leaf is snatched away.
94
THis has nothing to do with MeToo. At all. No one is claiming sexual assault or harassment. This was, by all accounts, consensual.
6
I somewhat thought the same thing, only from a different angle. The lecherous old man, married no less, is rewarded for his pursuit of a college-aged woman with a four-year sexual relationship.
It's kind of hard to tell men to stop acting like this when it succeeds just often enough to be worth the risk.
smerdlap--absurd comment.
one person and you indict the entire media?
no doubt it's happened before--Barbara walters for example--but I think you should be a lot more concerned with Donald trump's--et al--(lack of) ethics than this case.
and I second the commenter who misses the nyt ombudsman/woman
2
He was 50 -something, she was 22. He pursued her. I am so sick of these pathetic, older men. Get someone your own age, or preferably go home to your wife.
40
The pathetic older man knows who to target: ambitious young women who want to rise in their profession.They deserve each other, and sure make it hard for everyone else!
While I do agree, it takes two to make an affair. She knew better but continued.....just as Ms Lewinsky continued.
It takes two immoral people to have an affair.
7
Is that what bothers you Tina, not the 22 year old who is selling her body for a scoop?
5
And the information she got was hacked by the Chinese & Russians months before she found it. But there is no firestorm over that.
26
So a reporter accepts pearl bracelets from sources, and she sleeps with married men. And we're supposed to regard her as ethical? If the Times really thinks this is a conundrum, I fear for your professional souls.
246
What is missing -- either from this story or in a companion piece -- is a questioning of the whole confidential source incest that makes up so much of Washington journalism. Not saying it isn't necessary at times, but the use needs to be more limited and rules about personal relationships with sources need to be rigid and substantial. Moreover, there needs to be reporting and discussion about the Times' internal policies and their efficacy -- and to their adherence in this situation.
I am disappointed, however, with the article's repeated mentioning of the age difference, particularly the lede. A simple mentioning of the ages involved once would have been sufficient. This tabloid treatment significantly weakens an otherwise good job of reporting.
And finally, I can't help but feeling that Ms. Watkins is being thrown under the bus by the Times. She certainly walked out into the road, but the Times gave her the push in this story.
15
Ms. Watkins seems to have slept with a source not once or a few times, but for three years. Not much sympathy for that from me.
She was not fully candid and open with her employers, no sympathy there, either.
How did she get past the NYT's vetting system? Did she prevaricate or withhold information, or is the NYT hiring system in serious need of renovation?
2
Were I the editor for a reporter covering national security I'd certainly hold deeper conversations regarding the ins and outs of the situation. The thing is though is that there is no information proving she did anything wrong. Beyond this the story seems remarkably messed up. Federal prosecutors can size the private communications of a reporter working for the NYT? Without informing anyone? I thought both sides appear before a judge. Here the Feds apparently simply ceased her data with no consideration for any principals.
8
It is a search warrant in an active, criminal case. The prosecutors do not invite the person to be searched into the judge’s chambers when the detective requests the warrant. The legal action is after the search where lawyers can fight to suppress. The article has no info on that activity though I wonder if the lawyers for the reporter knew they would not win.
2
Clearly, a very young reporter advanced through the ranks very rapidly based on some extremely useful tips. And, the news organizations that hired her only *pretended* to care where the tips came from. It’s a time honored tradition. After all Judith Miller was living with Les Aspin, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, when she reported for the New York Times. Judith became a problem for the Times as well.
101
CNN published Wolfe's e-mail to her where he said how glad he was to provide her information to "scoop" her competition . If accurate there has been no report of that in the NYT; if not, there has been no rebuttal of that in the NYT. Which is it?
54
few of us are constitutional scholars, or ethicists, or journalists, but we are all experts on sex. forget about what jesus would do, the question is, what would we do? and the hypothetical answer is always clear as day: we would not do the things these people do. we would not live that way if you paid us to. not trade sex for secrets, nor secrets for sex, nor leverage our charms toward a better career. of course, we lie to ourselves shamelessly. that's what makes stories such as this so entertaining.
19
Well, I have never done anything like this, on either side of it.
It stinks, and the New York Times should not have condoned it.
And for the record, yes, I am male, heterosexual, and certainly have not led a life of chastity ... but I've recognized limits.
8
if there is in fact a record, i'm the same as you, although my limits are often drawn in retrospect. nevertheless, we're all human. we sleep around, or we don't: big deal. as warren zevon once said, you make your choices, you live with the consequences. i agree, the times could have supervised ali watkins better. and it's sad to imagine a bright 22 year-old as such a cynic.
Apart from all the obvious question regarding journalistic ethics, I have major concerns about someone like Wolfe having access to important state secrets. I would think that any man in his 50s, who isn't very wealthy or has some other attribute to explain what would make him attractive to a much younger woman, who becomes involved in an affair with a woman in her early 20s without asking himself why she would be interested in him is not competent to be trusted with these secrets. Ms. Watkins could easily have been a spy for a foreign power.
I do wonder if anyone at The Times, when considering her employment, wondered how she rose so quickly in journalism. I would assume its hiring as a reporter anyone in their mid-20s is highly unusual. This incident certainly doesn't inspire confidence in your investigative abilities or your having a degree of skepticism I would expect competent journalists to have.
111
How, exactly, do we know she wasn't a spy for a foreign power? If she can sleep with a source (the head of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee!) for three years and persuade the NYT to hire her, she seems to be a person of many talents. Maybe we'll learn everything when she writes her book.
3
Yes, why did our federal government hire him, and why did the Times hire her? And with all his issues, how did he get and keep a security clearance?
2
Yet sad that we're now depending on leaks to counter the subversive behaviors of the current administration!
6
An unethical journalist, what a shock! Actually the shock would be to find and ethical and unbiased reporter. Maybe somewhere in Iowa...
15
Not a chance. He was injured in combine accident and left the paper.
Certainly not at the Times.
1
The headline says this affair has "Rattled the Washington Media." I hope it shook the NYT, too, since it hired Ms. Watkins last Dec. knowing she had had a multi-year affair with James Wolfe, the Senate security director 30 years her senior. (When her records were seized by the FBI in Feb. Ms. Watkins did not tell the NYT.)
The claim that Ms. Watkins did not use her lover as a source is hard to believe; the indictment against Mr. Wolfe alleges that the couple exchanged “tens of thousands of electronic communications, often including daily texts and phone calls,” as well as “encrypted cell phone applications."
In an email to Ms Watkins last December around the time the affair ended and Ms. Watkins was hired by the NYT, Mr. Wolfe said, "I always tried to give you as much information as I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else... I always enjoyed the way that you would pursue a story like nobody else was doing in my hallway... I felt like I was part of your excitement and was always very supportive of your career and the tenacity that you exhibited to chase down a good story." That sounds like a source to me.
Re hiring Ms. Watkins, what did the NYT know and when did it know it? Does the NYT condone reporters sleeping with sources? Support serious vetting and journalistic ethics?
Ms. Watkins still has an NYT email address. She has lawyered up, so we may never know the full story unless she has to testify in court under oath.
101
No mention that Ms Watkins is on leave from the Times for her clearly unethical behavior. If not, why not?
76
I thought the rule of journalism was, if you sleep with an elephant, you can't cover the circus.
And I take exception to the headline describing Wolfe as a "security aide" as if he checked people's passes. He was head of security for the Senate Intelligence Committee.
It should be easy to see if Ms Watkins took advantage of her relationship--and if her employers turned a blind eye in the hopes of getting scoops.
Just see how well she does without the support of her relationship with Wolfe.
51
She will find another "source." And the Times or another MS Medium will hire her because she has a way to get scoops.
1
I wonder how much of this is the result of an obsessive journalistic culture to get whatever scope it can from the Trump Administration? While reporters have always engaged with sources to produce newsworthy items, the compulsion to find anything scandalous from the current administration tops all other factors in Washington. It continues to leave many of us with a uneasy feeling that the press has become an attack dog for the Trump Resistance.
12
I think you mean "scoop." The press' behavior is extraordinary because Trump's departure from historical norms is extraordinary. And since the legislative branch (GOP) is unwilling to show principle and remove Trump as a clear and present danger to the country, our only hope rests with a free press to expose/document his despicable behavior, and the judiciary that will hopefully hold him accountable for is illegal behavior (it would take several judiciaries several lifetimes to hold him accountable for his immoral/unethical behavior).
1
"But sometimes, she admitted, it got complicated: She would make a mental note of tidbits he mentioned offhand, or gossip with him about Capitol Hill, or throw out a fact and gauge his reply."
It didn't get "complicated" it got compromised.
Difficult, dicey, pressure-cooker, hard to navigate, ...all true aspects of both jobs.
But also a mistake and actions have (sooner or later) consequences.
In baseball, using a "corked" bat has never been adequately demonstrated to be an advantage; but it is still not allowed. It is the "perception rule" of ethics; like it or not.
25
I can't count the number of pearl bracelets I've received as gifts from friends and colleagues uninterested in a romantic relationship.
I also don't believe he wasn't a source, that his appeal wasn't info and seeming wisdom, that hers wasn't youth and liveliness, and that these relationships don't happen more than we know because people are, well, humans.
49
reporters are human and when people are thrown together for long periods of time these things aren't uncommon.
however, there is a lack of judgement by both of these people.
it was symbiotic and the employers of both should've been concerned.
ms Watkins' second relationship throws her motives into question in a more serious way.
26
I believe point 16 of the indictment indicates "tens of thousands of electronic communications" were shared over the course of three and half years. Doing the math, this amounts to over eight such communications per day for each of the ten thousand. Or about one every three hours every day, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for three and half years, for each of the ten thousand that make up the "tens of thousands." I think this helps to provide more context, especially for us who are more comfortable thinking in numbers.
12
@wjdecker, your interpretation of the math suggests that every three hours, this couple was in contact. But it’s more likely that perhaps every other day they shot back and forth a flurry of texts or emails.
A text conversation held over five or ten minutes items can count for a couple dozen individually-counted communications.
4
Yes, eight a day (or even "around 50-60 a week for each of the ten thousand") is probably the right level of "resolution." My basic point is that a number like that would help readers relate to the volume of communication between the two, and offer some insight to their relationship that can be compared to the reader's own activity.
Decisions have consequences.
I feel terrible not only for the talented young reporter (Ali Watkins), but I cry for American journalists now confronting unprecedented attempts by our own government to delegitimize ALL journalists as untrustworthy. One of the tenets of journalists is to understand the delicate boundaries with their human sources.
She was basically just a kid, but she should have known better.
James Wolf surely knew what he was doing - seeking out ambitious young women using his position of power, while his marriage was on the rocks. This is an old story not that different from a Harvey Weinstein.
There are boundary lessons here as well for Politico, the Daily Beast and NYT, who it seems chose to all overlook the bright warning signs in search of journalistic gold.
The Trump Administration seeks to discredit all real journalists as untrustworthy and monitor them, and yet the vital role they now hold is precious if our teetering democracy experiment is to survive.
143
Ms. Watkins was a graduate of journalism school, so I imagine that at least one of her courses devoted at least an hour to the challenging concept of ethics in journalism.
She slept with a source not once, not a few times, but for three years; this was not a one-time slip-up, but a clear pattern of behavior that was not coerced.
12
She was not a kid, she was a young adult. And she knew what she was doing.
7
If a first wife says her ex-husband abused her and he's on his second wife (with two kids) while starting an affair with you (a woman half his age), you might be wise to believe the first wife. Or, minimally, question his general ethics. And if the relationship is going to impact a career you seem to love and be quite good at, it's just not worth it. There are plenty of men.
And this is how a top security official behaves? Inside tips for relationships with young women?
Ugh.
175
She was sleeping with him to advance her career... not a relationship.
11
Is this how recent journalism grads are taught to behave? Sleep with sources, for three years no less? No wonder so many people, not just Trumpians, are decrying all the "Fake News" we are now being exposed to.
2
The reason she did it is because the relationship was going to impact her career. And it did. She went from being an intern with McClatchy, to being a full-time reporter with them. Then she went to the Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Politico and finally, the New York Times. Let's not kid ourselves that she would've gotten any of those jobs without information from her lover.
In her Twitter feed, she joked about House of Cards and Zoe Barnes, in particular. She may have been in the woods, but she certainly wasn't a naïve babe.
As for him, all I can say is that he's going to go to jail. And deservedly so. The charge may be lying to the FBI, but it's clear this man leaked classified information. No sympathy for him. No sympathy for her.
5
If she were not a reporter and her phone had evidence of her partner committing serious crimes, seizure of her phone via judicial order would be a done deal. Though reporters like to consider themselves apart, their job has no more special status in Federal law or the Constitution than the the guys that clean up road kill. The literally hundreds of thousands of eligible men in DC area and she has two relationships with men on a top secret committee that almost none of us had previously known existed? Either not thinking or over thinking.
15
Isn’t it odd that a New York Times reporter would speak to her friends about her actions as a reporter, but not the New York Times? And that the NYT has to cite unnamed sources about what one of its own reporters has said to about a story? Is NYT management confident that Ms. Watkins has been candid with them, or could she still be holding back material information on the advice of her lawyer?
27
Wow... she seems bright and talented. But this is just a litany of poor judgement.
9
A 50 something year old male having an affair with a 20 something-year-old female? This is a story as old as time. Maybe neither compromised their professional integrity. The problem is maybe they did compromise their professional integrity, both professionally and personally. Let's not twist ourselves into pretzels trying to defend these two. Hormones got one and ambition got the other. Nothing could have possibly gone wrong. Yea?
70
It is to the Times’s credit this investigation is being reported here in detail.
Hopefully, editors will recognize the danger passion poses to professionalism, and that it extends all the way up the editorial hierarchy: to the pursuit of scoops, to salacious headlines, to “augmented reality”.
Critical readers prefer their news dry as a bone.
13
Ali Watkins is clearly another victim in the me-too movement. Manipulated by an older man (thank goodness there are no allegations that he assaulted her, only those of his former wife, and that Ms. Watkins was focused enough on her career that she could overlook issues of character in her pursuit of love), too young to assume responsibility for her own life (this started when she was an intern – wasn’t anyone mentoring her to protect her from the big bad Wolfes?) and competing in the insular world of Washington, where everyone (now) knows young, ambitious journalists compete for scoops while navigating relationships with powerful, often older, sources. As such, she deserves our sympathy.
2
"As such, she deserves our sympathy."
No, she doesn't. She started dating another guy down the hallway after things ended with Wolfe. Not holding young adults accountable for their actions keeps them in an immature state. Not what we need these days.
119
Of course she doesn't. She's just another damsel in distress operating in a world without irony.
1
This is so insulting to young professional women. We have to protect you from the big, bad wolves in the world, and if you have consensual sex with older, powerful men you have been “taken advantage of” by them. Poor little thing! He didn’t prey on her. She could have been the one cultivating him. More likely they both used each other. Don’t compare the very real harassment women experience in the work world with what this stupid young woman, by choice, put herself in the middle of. It muddies what is a serious issue for the rest of us.
21
"The most important issue here remains the seizure of a journalist’s personal communications..."
No, the most important issue is how low journalistic standards have fallen. Having an affair with a man twice your age while he feeds you classified information so you can boost your career. What could go wrong?
115
Yes. The most important issue is why NYT hired this person despite obvious warning signs. Was there any vetting at all, or did they just do what the reporter did when she learned that her paramour had been accused of domestic violence: assume the best and keep whistling past the graveyard without asking any kind of questions at all?
6
I do not understand why the NY Times sent a notification to my phone about this story, as if it were vital, breaking news. This item is a classic example of those in the media assuming that something of interest to them must necessarily be fascinating to everyone else. This should be--at most--an item for the back pages.
4
The blatant threatening of journalists by Trump administration personnel is shocking and anathema to American values. It is an assault on a free press.
That said, Ms. Watkins showed a stunning naivete & lack of integrity. Once discovered that Jeffrey Rambo was stalking and harassing her on behalf of the Trump administration, why did she not go public with a report naming and shaming him? To cover her own misdeeds & ethical gray areas.
Everyone with a speaking role in this must be held to a higher standard. CBP, journalists, congressional staff. Shame on them all.
13
What was she thinking?
8
"It also brought her closer to Mr. Wolfe, who would later text her saying how “proud” he was of her work on the series."
Mr. Wolfe also said in the text: "I always tried to give you as much information as I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else... I always enjoyed the way that you would pursue a story like nobody else was doing in my hallway."
9
The optics on this are terrible. When Ms. Watkins chose to have a personal relationship with Mr. Wolfe, she compromised her ethical standards. She also let fellow colleagues down, especially women.
Either she is naive or she has very poor judgement (Wolfe was a married man). Further, she must have known that workplace relationships are never a good idea.
How does she prove she did not use Wolfe as a source?
22
One relationship on the committee, I could perhaps understand, but two? I think she benefitted professionally from her relationship with him and I think that's unethical. I'm always little suspect when someone so young rises so quickly in journalism that they might be breaking the rules somehow. I can't forget Jayson Blair.
69
We saw the same relationship in “House of Cards” However, in house of Cards, the young reporter gets pushed in front of a DC metro as she gets too close to the President.
House of Cards has always seemed eerily real. And, in this case it looks more like life imitating art.
11
The entire world of press norms is a shadow world in America; no one really understands the rules because there are no hard and fast rules. The press claims a murky legal "privilege" to refuse to reveal sources, and to refuse to cooperate in official investigations. They claim, with no legal justification, that they are immune from testimony in or prosecution for all manner of law violations, starting with conspiring to obtain and leak legally secret information, and the illegal possession of that information.
The court system and prosecutors have effectively acceded to the claims of press immunity by not pushing the issue and by seldom forcing reporters to follow the rules the rest of us are required to follow. In the end, it has probably helped our nation, by promoting an informed public. But it seems a little unfair to a reporter like Ali Watkins to savage her among her owns ranks, ex post facto, for violating imprecise and unspoken rules when the whole press corps is daily violating actual laws with impunity.
These informal rules that protect the press are at jeopardy today, and it is something the press should consider carefully. Its daily drumbeat of bias against the president of the United States, evident to all America, may prompt prosecutors and the court system to rock the boat and remove its informal legal protections from a biased press sector which engages in what increasingly seems like a personal vendetta against an elected president.
6
I agree with your comment except for your assertion that the media has a "daily drumbeat of bias against the president of the United States, evident to all America..."
The bias is not evident to me. In fact, they go way too easy on him (such as calling blatant lies 'falsehoods.')
6
Clearly you do not understand the roll of the Forth Estate. our free press, in our democracy.
3
Respectfully, it is the "Fourth Estate."
The relationship between Washington insiders and the media is often much too cozy. Some are even married (Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell is a striking example) or the children (Cokie Roberts and Hale Boggs) of Washington elites. Just how do they separate their professional and personal? It's also fraught as each depends on the other so it's really a symbiotic relationship that I suspect crosses the line much more often than it should.
39
Actually the Cokie Roberts connection is a bit different than you cite. When her father and then her mother were in Congress, she was married to Steven Roberts, a Times reporter. However, unlike the Watkins-Wolfe relationship, this and the Mitchell-Greenspan relationship were not hidden from the public. The Watkins-Wolfe relationship seems to be closer to the one between Times reporter Judith Miller and Les Aspin.
Watkins apparently hid her relationship not only from the public but from her employers and didn't tell The Times about it until after she was hired indicating that she knew it was important and might expect her informing it of her involvement with Wolfe might give it pause regarding her journalistic ethics.
3
I think Mr. Wolfe's name is appropriate. Like Ms. Watkins, I spent my twenties in DC in another form of media, and felt sad that this targeting of young professional women by older (usually married) men is still the norm. While I can empathize with this smart woman's failure to act smartly in her personal life because of her young age, I find nothing but contempt for the wolf who manipulated her. As Ms Watkins said..."sigh."
57
You assume he targeted her; it might well have been the other way around.
11
Ms. Watkins failed "to act smartly" (i.e., slept with a source) for three years, even after seeing what happened to Zoe Barnes in House of Cards. It takes two to tango for three years.
5
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I would believe what you were saying if Watkins had only dated Wolfe... but she immediately began dating another member of the same committee after they broke up. As old as older men targeting younger women, is younger women targeting older men for professional advancement, and given Watkin's history, that appears to be what she's doing.
Maybe we should just unilaterally declare that 30 year age gaps in relationships are never a good idea. Don't date someone who could be your daughter or father; both parties are responsible. Holding only the older man responsible is as patriarchal as holding only the younger woman. She doesn't get a free pass for her age and gender.
9
Good grief. This is isn't Watergate. Ok, well maybe it is distasteful, but he could certainly have a relationship without disclosing any confidential information. We do it on the healthcare side with HIPAA, I would think our government could act with similar restraint.
5
Did you read the part where, after the first young woman ended the relationship, he started texting another young woman with tips until she didn't respond to his night-time texts? He was exploiting his position.
138
Yes, I did read that.
Did you read the part where Watkins dated another member of the same committee after breaking up with Wolfe? Sounds like they both were abusing their positions. It's also patriarchal to grant Watkins a free pass because of her age and gender.
I'm very curious about the process of securing a warrant to seize this reporter's e mails. That being said, I don't think that this is either a First or Fourth Amendment hill to die on, as there was clearly a reasonable basis for at least an investigation of both parties to this affair: he seems prone to dangling sensitive national security information for young reporters to lure them into affairs, and she seems all too happy to get too cozy with potential sources (yes, plural). The highly sensitive nature of this man's position should have caused her to disclosure more than the usual amount to her employers about their relationship. She exposed both her employers and her profession to scrutiny at a time when both must be beyond reproach.
44
In this day and age of super encryption, I would be astonished if she had anything on her personal computers. It's way too easy to store important and personal things where it's almost impossible to retrieve or find them.
1
Do you believe that her employers didn't know what was going on? That somehow a 26 year old is so brilliant as to discover ... never mind. They knew, she knew, and now it appears no one cares. At least those that believe the ends justify the means - the biggest complaint I have of the extreme media these days, but especially the 'resistant progressives.'
5
What I notice is, people are always failing to separate their professional and personal lives.
Could it be, that's the nature of being human?
39
People are not "always failing" to separate personal and professional lives. When they do fail, it becomes news. It becomes news because they failed to do what they should have done and so have fallen outside the mainstream. The vast, vast majority of journalists and government officials do what they are supposed to do. You can have personal relationships and professional lives, but when you choose to mix the two to the extent depicted in this story, it is wrong. They should have chosen one or the other.
It is not part of human nature. It is wrong, plain wrong.
7
My observation is that our personal and professional lives are inextricably linked.
It may be that, as an artist, where it's expected that my personal and professional lives inform each other, I simply can't see when people in other professions successfully separate the two.
What is your profession, Mr. West? Could you give an example of a time when you successfully separated your professional life from your professional work? Was it good for either one side or the other?
I think the problem is the attempt to conceal and be secret. Secrecy undermines both your personal life and your professional work. Be open, transparent and honest, and everything gets better, personally and professionally.
Unless you're a spy, I suppose.
I appreciate this chewy, thoughtful analysis of a complicated situation. I understand the attention to the ethical grey areas (especially the difficulty determining when a person is a source and when he is not). I also accept that this is 2018 and that the NYT is not responsible for policing intimate boundaries, but this young woman began and maintained a relationship with a man who was, throughout their affair, married to another woman. I have a problem with this. She is clearly talented and willing to work hard, but character is also important.
38
She is a modern "courtisane", using all her skills to reach her objectives. Why not, they are both adults, it seems that no pressure was used and even love was involved. She is a free and powerful woman
4
“Talented” in what way?
4
Agreed -- despite the recent revelations of sexual abusive males, anyone who has ever worked in America can tell you stories of women who have used sex for the purpose of career advancement - it is not a one-way street
The NYT appears not to have learned much from the Judith Miller debacle, in which a reporter who had a long history of intertwining romantic and personal relationships with people on her beat ultimately proved to have let that judgement interfere with her reporting. We have her stories to thank for the Bush administration's assertion that if even the NYT felt there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then we were justified in invading that country.
As for the repeated willingness of editors to believe Ms. Watkins' statements that her boyfriend was not a source - wow. Would they so willingly believe a source in a story who told a reporter, "I didn't do this," or, "I did this," without investigating those claims? This problem is not confined to women reporters; men have crossed this line, also. It's easy to understand how it happens - you often spend more time in intimate conversation with your sources than your spouse - but it's never a good idea.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I also once dated a source, and yes, it ended very messily. It didn't involve a series of stories about national security, but it was definitely a mistake, and it never happened again. Ms. Watkins appears to have not learned much from getting burned the first time.
220
Exactly right. Particularly the part about editors believing that line about "When my boyfriend hands me a scoop, I tell him to stop."
Multiple heads need to roll at NYT.
10
The mention of Judith Miller is valid, DLM.
Nothing about this situation smells good. As a reporter (speaking from long experience), one doesn't socialize with those you cover, let alone sleep with them. Such relationships taint the reporter, the stories that emerge and the journalistic organ.
In this case, the lack of curiosity by successive editors, including Bumiller at the Times, is inexcusable.
Watkins's failure to inform the Times that her emails and phone records had been taken by federal investigators is also inexcusable. It seems less the confusion of a young reporter than an attempt, albeit clumsy, to cover up conduct that will surely result, now, in her firing.
The Times should be red-faced about this. This is not an example of how professional journalism should work, and, sadly, it gives credence to those who complain daily about "false news."
Bring back a public editor with backbone, Times. You surely need one.
2
Journalists have a difficult job, and as with many other such positions, have to be willing to accept certain limits on their personal conduct in order to properly perform their professional roles. Admittedly, many who call themselves journalists today do not really warrant the name (just because you make a few You Tube videos or write a blog does not make you a journalist), but those institutions, formerly referred too as "trusted" have done this to themselves since Watergate with ever more arrogance and cozy relations with politicians. The dreadful White House Correspondent's dinner is a prime example - you can't party with the people you cover.
As well, and this will upset some, it also illustrates the perils of granting too much power to those too young to handle it. "...her ascent from college-age intern to rising star in the sensitive field of national security reporting" shows that while technically adept, perhaps more maturity and life experience would have prepared Ms. Watkins to be better able to navigate situations of this type. There's a good reason that "senior correspondents" back in the day weren't 26!
229
Great observations. As newspapers and other media organizations have declined, old hands have been shown the door in favor of younger, cheaper "talent." Has the quality of journalism improved? Hardly.
The NYT has made its bed here. Good luck sleeping in it.
7
My professional mentor (a woman) shared an invaluable tip with me when I was young and just starting out: You don’t sleep where you work. She was right, and even at the age of 22 I knew she was right. Throughout my professional life the opportunity presented itself and I always avoided it because I knew it was unprofessional, would cloud my judgment, and potentially malign my work. I didn’t want to be one of “those women” who was talked about at the water cooler for getting ahead because she was sleeping with someone helping her . He was not a source? Nor was the next guy on the committee she moved on to when it ended with Wolfe? Please.....So why was Ms. Watkins, supposedly such a smart person, so stupid? It’s embarrassing for other women journalists and gives ammunition to the administration in their war on the media. Don’t fall on your sword for that one...there will be others more deserving of the effort.
397
Neither Mr. Wolfe nor this young reporter seem to have any ethics. How in the world was this reporter hired by the New York Times? He's cheating on his wife. She's sleeping with a married man who holds a key position on a beat she covers. And we're really supposed to believe she did not use information he provided her? Journalists should have higher standards if they are to be trusted.
320
Presidents too.
4
Are you acquainted with the current (so-called) President of the United States, his family and his administration? They make this story look like a sweet Dr. Seuss fable by comparison.
5
The same should apply to presidents.. but.. alas, they don't.
1
Judith Miller. Jason Blair. Howell Raines. I once worked for the New York Times as a full-time freelancer out of the Los Angeles bureau. I thought it really was the greatest paper on earth. And yet, once again the competitive push for scoops has blinded editors to ethical principles that must be defended at all costs, even the price of missing out on stories dubiously sourced. Why is she still employed by the New York Times?
175
House of Cards, season 1, anyone?
Never mind what Watkins did. I'm more concerned about the gatekeepers. A series of editors of respected magazines and newspapers decided to believe that a reporter in her 20s was not using as a source the 50+ man she was dating.
This should have raised red flags all over Washington. Personally, her editors' statements that they 'decided to trust her' sounds to me like 'we decided we didn't want to know'. Nobody looks good in this story.
477
House of Cards, wow, my thoughts exactly! Apparently, writers of the show had their ear to the ground for that particular story line. My stomach churns just reading this column and remembering the show. Those of us who live around the beltway can still be horrified by the inner machinations revealed. Does it ever stop?
1
This is just stark-raving insane. Anywhere else, this would have set off, millions of alarms. This month, in a similar event, the CEO of Intel was ordered to leave Intel, within weeks of the first report.
This is not about the First Amendment. This is about a criminal investigation, involving adults. And adults are supposed to either "suck it up," or find something less risky to do.
Did not meet Times' standards.
I read the Micheal Goodwin piece sited in the article. The NYT leaves out the crucial part of the commentary. Goodwin quotes his former boss at the Times, Abe Rosenthal, who, after firing a reporter for concealing an affair she had with the main focus of her beat, told the newsroom, in part:
"I don't care if you {sleep with} elephants on your own time, but you can't cover the circus" (expletive deleted).
Rosenthal drew a red line and enforced it. Now the Times, which abides nothing unethical from the "wrong" type of politician or CEO, hems and haws and rationalizes.
To the chagrin of the Times this "affair" is one more bullet point on the list of "how you get 4 more years of Trump".
The Times needs to reactivate its Rosenthal DNA.
148
I shudder to think of the stupid things I did in my 20s, also in the workplace. But it was the 70s, and I was the first woman in a previously all-male field in my community. I was experimenting and I had very little judgement, probably like a lot of people. And there was nowhere to turn for advice or mentoring.
So she was/is young and stupid and she's paying for it, hopefully not her whole life. He was old and predatory and he's paying for it. Let it be a lesson for all the young women starting out in their careers -- these types of men are always out there.
The real fault lies with her editors; their excuses are amazing. They need to do some soul searching.
171
This isn’t predator-prey, it’s symbiosis. They were both willing partners with something to gain from a transactional relationship.
True feminism is a willingness to grant agency to women in their 20s and hold them accountable for it.
17
What she got out of it is a stellar career before even being 25, but she was just “young and stupid”. He, however, was “predatory”.
So she was forced into this relationship and then forced to use him as a source ? After they broke up, she tried to date another useful source and he tried to get the same deal with another young reporter. Seems like sleaze on both sides.
Why the double standard ?
6
She's a highly intelligent, adult college graduate. Does a woman have to be a 45-year-old lawyer before she's responsible for her own share of two-to-tango?
8
Shame on Watkins' bosses for tacitly giving approval to this absolutely inappropriate relationship. Shame on Watkins for pursuing a relationship (make that two, actually) that left her open to blackmail or bias, either of which are professionally irresponsible for a reporter in her position. Shame on Wolfe for violating his ethical duties as a Senate aide and as a husband.
That the Trump administration jumped all over this and is now screeching about "Deep State conspiracies" and a lot of other nonsense does not negate the profound idiocy of the parties involved. Ends do not justify means. Scoops are not worth damaging long-term credibility. This is not rocket science, people!
149
I recently retired after a 38-year career as a journalist at a major daily newspaper and website.
I strongly agree that the government's seizure of the reporter's emails and phone records violates the First Amendment and is deeply concerning to anyone who supports the media.
But I am very concerned with how this young woman was allowed to violate the strongest principle for every journalist - avoid at any cost any suggestion of a conflict of interest.
I am at a loss at how her editors either shrugged off her explanations of her conduct or didn't probe more deeply into who she was involved with because she was generating scoops from sources and posting stories that got the "clicks" that publications seek.
At the very least she should have been removed from covering the intelligence committee and shifted to another beat.
It does not matter if the journalist is male or female - this should be a wake-up call to all publications.
232
How? A reading of the NY times on a daily basis answers that question. Men are predators, women and minorities are victims and the NY Times will do anything to promote the ideal that the world is not a fair place until we have proportional balance in everything. They didn't see the truth because their policy agenda blinded them to it. She is still working for them.. need i say more.
4
1st Amendment protections are obviously important. In this case, it was probably important for investigators to review her emails and phone records to determine if she was receiving information in her capacity as a journalist or as co-conspirator.
Where's the NYT ombudsmen when you need her? Nope! NYT certainly doesn't need one of those.
105
Yes, I miss having an ombudsmen, although maybe no human can address all the issues in the current climate.
5
I made the same comment about an hour ago (and for the last year or so)...and I know what the NYT's response was at the time and which is at the moment- that these reader postings/comments are a valid replacement for an ombudsmen. I disagree---but---and I will limit the "but" to this story only---if you look through the 200+ comments I think there is a clear consensus among all of the political divides- and all genders - namely this type of "reporting" is an affront to journalism, not defensible and cannot be addressed with a slap on the wrist. The length of this piece, it substance, lede and use of sources tells me that the NYT does get it....Ali's days are numbered...and perhaps (rather than as someone said below refer to this preplanned month long vacation that she apparently scheduled at a perfect time 6 months after hiring)...the editor can just state simply after investigation we are severing ties with her...and everyone can move on---except Mr. Wolfe who can have his day in Court (I think a law school student could convict him based upon his own admissions).
5