I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I've had drinks with many politicians and their staff on off-hours because sometimes you're stuck in the same place—there's only so many bars in Iowa, or the edges of Arizona—and sometimes you just want to talk about issues with someone deep in the weeds, and other times, you just simply want to hang out with the cute polling expert.
On the other hand, you've gotta' remember that access only matters in that it creates access to information that you then publish. And, granted you shouldn't blow up a drinking buddy's career over something you heard at closing time during an off-the-record chat, but you might want to start following leads if that buddy is into some shady shit.
I was talking to my son about ethics, and we talked about how I went on a junket with a Congressman to Mexico, and while there talked to folks with the State Dept. Afterwards, we went to get lunch at a notable place, and the head waiter delivered our bill to the man he knew, which was a member of State.
Which created a huge amount of consternation as several people tried to manage the ethics of who paid. I said simply, "I have pesos" and dropped a stack of bills and coins on the table, "you guys figure it out, but I'm paying my part of the bill regardless."
Now, any report who can be bought with food—though a good mole chicken might be a good start—probably isn't worth a damn, and I don't buy that it matters that much compared to professional duty. But, on the other hand, I want to pay for myself, and I don't want to appear on someone's expense report, either.
So, if access means you can't do your job, the bigger issue is not whether you had a drink with Boehner, but whether you pick and choose what to write about based on who you like and who you don't.
Shorter version, if you can't write a sharp piece about a drinking buddy, you need to stop writing, or stop drinking.
www.dailymail.co.uk
