All of this, of course, is part of the promotion for her new book, set to be released Tuesday, titled: Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House. Well-named considering her background and that of the president.
Still, this is news if the tapes are authentic, and they appear to be. But what that news is follows several paths that reporters need to be careful navigating.
First there is Omaroso -- whose full name is Omarosa Onee Manigault Newman -- who came to the job with little experience and her own checkered past. She actually worked previously for Democrats as an assistant to Vice President Al Gore in the 1990s and on the Obama campaign in Ohio in 2008.
She spent "several weeks" at the U.S. Commerce Department in 2000 before being "asked to leave as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive,” Cheryl Shavers, that department's former undersecretary for technology told People. “One woman wanted to slug her.”
The same article also quoted a former Gore staffer as saying her job for the vice-president involved answering invitations and “she didn’t do her job, and it got everybody in trouble." She, of course, later went on to The Apprentice -- three versions of it, actually -- where Trump fired her each time. She also later appeared on CBS' Big Brother.
So given Trump's TV and reality show approach, it might not have been a surprise that he hired her. It might also not have been a surprise that she would be fired as well given her poor employment track record -- reality or not.
So when she comes back with a book, interviews and tapes making allegations about the president, the press needs to take all of her claims, history and background into consideration as they seek to get the truth and not fall into the celebrity gossip and mudslinging that has taken over too much of both reality TV and political coverage.
There are also the legal aspects of her recordings. In one case, she apparently recorded a phone conversation with Trump in which he claims he did not know she was being fired and was not happy about it. Assuming Trump was in the District of Columbia at the time, that would fall under that jurisdiction's phone recording laws, which indicate only one party to a recorded phone call needs to give consent, according to the Digital Media Law Center.
The other bombshell Sunday was Omarosa releasing tapes she recorded of her and Kelly, apparently in the White House situation room, with Kelly stating, "the staff and everyone on the staff works for me and not the president" when she asked about Trump's knowledge of her firing.
In playing the tapes, NBC News made clear that it did not know the context of the entire conversations, an important caveat. It is also important for the press to take into account that both Trump and his staff have very spotty records with facts, accuracy and employee treatment. When asked about Omarosa this week, Trump called her a "low-life."
Many of the news outlets reporting on all of the recording and book claims appear to be doing well giving full background on the former White House staffer, her past work, and specific claims. On the Kelly secret recording, the question has arisen if such a move was illegal given that it took place in the Situation Room, a space reserved for high-level security-related conversations. Axios.com posted a good story asking national security experts about it, with most agreeing it was not a criminal act.
In some instances Omarosa contends Kelly's words to her were "a threat." Such a charge needs to be carefully examined as it involves someone's opinion on a subject rather than related facts. Asking a legal expert or criminal investigator if such a statement could be considered a threat would be helpful.
Finally there is the aspect of such tell-all books and their credibility, fact-checking, and sourcing. I have written about many such books in the past and the false claims that later come out, and worse the lack of real factual reviews in most of today's book publishing.
Omarosa's book is being published by Gallery Books, a Simon and Schuster imprint that has done similar books by Derek Jeter and Amy Schumer.
But Simon and Schuster also had to retract a 2013 book from its Threshold label by former British security contractor Dylan Davies, whose claims about the 2012 Benghazi attack were later found to be inaccurate. His story had led to a 60 Minutes segment that was questioned and prompted the suspension of CBS News correspondent Lara Logan.
That same year, Threshold cancelled a planned book by offensive right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos after tapes surfaced indicating he "seemed to condone sex between men and boys."
I asked many veterans of the book publishing world at that time about fact-checking and accuracy in such tell-alls. Most admitted there is little that can be confirmed given the way the organizations are set up.
"As a general course of business, publishers do not conduct a thorough fact-check on most of their books," Sloan Harris, a literary agent at ICM Talent who represented New Yorker veterans Jane Mayer and Ken Auletta, told me at the time. "A number of our prominent authors will, in fact, employ an outside fact-checker at their own expense."
Robert Weil, a 35-year editor at W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., said back then that staffing full-time fact-checkers was just not possible for publishers: "It's really on a book-by-book basis, you don't have an entire staff to fact-check a book ... We are all fallible. There are much bigger staffs at certain magazines to do huge amounts of fact-checking, which book publishers have not had. Often you will ask an author to hire someone to do that."
Omorasa could very well be telling the truth in her book, which also includes claims that Trump used the N-word and other embarrassing accusations. Although several people cited by Omarosa as sources for the N-word claim have recently denied it.
Pollster Frank Luntz tweeted Friday, "I’m in @Omarosa’s book on page 149. She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word. Not only is this flat-out false (I’ve never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn’t even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work."
Omarosa has since claimed she heard Trump use the N-word herself. With such changing accusations and denials, it is hard to tell what to believe, and perhaps as important to carefully report it.
But if it is her word against his, the public is left to choose between two rather questionable people. We have known for years that Trump lies about 70 percent of the time, according to Politifact.
Less is known about Omarosa's honesty, although her track record on employment and treatment of others is weak, and that fact she is a fired ex-employee needs to be taken into account.
I urge the press, and the public, to tread carefully as this story continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment