‘Til Death (or a conflict of interest) Do Us Part

The snarkiness continues…

We recently mentioned Jonathan Yardley’s diss of Andrea Mitchell and her relationship with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Since one-sided fights in Washington are never any fun, Mrs. Greenspan pulled a “Oh No You Didn’t!” in her washingtonpost.com chat today, responding to Yardley’s criticism of Andrea’s dilemma (and an oft-discussed dilemma for most of media’s A-List): walking the fine line between covering personalities and being a hob-nobbing personality yourself.

“Andrea Mitchell: I was frankly very disappointed because the review seemed to take issue not with my reporting, but with issues that I dealt with in the book — namely the quite understandable perception that Washington journalists can be too close to their sources. I believe in talking back. I was very honest about how I resolved those conflicts. I describe how I first met my husband long before he was in government and how careful we have been, over the past 18 years since he has been at the Fed, to establish a firewall.

What was mystifying to me in The Post review is that it didn’t touch on many of the criticisms that I explore in the book about the media’s role, both before 9/11 and before the war in Iraq. I think that I have tried to honestly explore some of those failures as well as talk for the first time about my personal life with Alan Greenspan.

So I thought that the review seemed to have a preconceived notion about me and, frankly, quite a bit of an agenda. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond.”

Oh snap.

CBS’s Public Eye blog discusses the matter here.

Since, well, we’d be nothing without DC’s cocktail parties, we seriously hope that no one takes seriously one question raised by Public Eye:

“Does being a reporter mean one shouldn’t have dinner with anyone they might cover in a purely social setting? How about cocktail parties?”

No and no.