Well, you know, in any political campaign, you're gonna have people on one side that are gonna slip a reporter something because they think it'll hurt the guy on the other side.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I realise that, strutting around in power corridors for political coverage, a journalist becomes half a politician.
Historically, war journalists have embedded themselves with one side, which means the greatest threat comes from the clearly delineated enemy of that side.
People, not just reporters, are more interested in politics than in government, so the actual issues wouldn't be something that interested them.
It's very dangerous for a storyteller to walk into a situation with a political agenda because you end up telling a story about issues instead of telling a story about people.
When you're a war correspondent, the reader is for you because the reader is saying, 'Gee, I wouldn't want to be doing that.' They're on your side.
If someone says you're a reporter and doesn't want you to anchor then you wonder why you worked so hard at it.
What you realize hanging out with investigative reporters is that, while they may be personally liberal, they don't let that get in the way of a good story.
When a big event happens, people turn on to CNN, not only because they know there will be people there covering an event on the ground, but because they know we're going to cover it in a way that's non-partisan, that's not left or right.
If you look at the newspapers here - the Washington papers - most of the discussion deals with campaign gossip.
The fact is that in a way, journalists become a kind of default in the system when you don't have substantive two-party back-and-forth inside of the government.
No opposing quotes found.