Wall Street Journal on the Line

On Monday, according to The Wall Street Journal, Barry Sternlicht told investors in his Starwood Capital Group who’d dialed into a teleconference: “We’re bidding on a bank.”

The report cited “people familiar with the matter” as identifying the unnamed bank as Corus Bankshares Inc., but Journal reporters Lingling Wei and Nick Timiraos also quoted from the call without any attribution, or information about where their notes on the call came from. Were they on the line?

It’s not unknown: When there’s a private conference call, the attendees get a phone number and a code to dial. Theoretically, anyone who gets the right phone number and code (and is smart enough to put his phone on mute) can be along for the ride without anyone knowing any better.

A call to Mr. Sternlicht’s office was not immediately returned, and a spokesman for The Wall Street Journal refused to comment on how the paper reports its stories, so it was impossible to confirm whether the reporters were, in fact, privy to the call, and whether Mr. Sternlicht had given them access to such a big scoop. (Ms. Wei had referred calls to the spokesman.)

The Journal spokesman also declined to say whether the paper has an editorial policy about listening in on such a call without the parties’ permission. That’s pretty standard: It’s part of what’s behind the curtain about how reporters get important scoops.

Of course, reporters get leaked private documents all the time. And have people present at meetings tell them what happened verbatim. Sometimes reporters even get surreptitious recordings. Is this any different?

“Well, that’s a good question,” said Mike Hoyt, the executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, as he paused to ruminate.

“When I was a young reporter, listening at a door was not a bad thing. And it sounds something like that. On the other hand, I think of that guy from Cincinnati who listened to people’s taped messages, and that’s of course illegal and a crime,” Mr. Hoyt said.

Without knowing the details of the call and whether there was any kind of off-the-record admonition at the outset, Mr. Hoyt seemed to think it was equivalent to a meeting.

“I’d like to think about it some more, but my instinct is I don’t see the problem,” Mr. Hoyt said.

Article continues below
More from Politics
STAR OF DAVID OR 'PLAIN STAR'?   If you thought "CP Time" was impolitic, on July 2 Donald Trump posted a picture on Twitter of a Star of David on top of a pile of cash next to Hillary Clinton's face. You'd think after the aforementioned crime stats incident (or after engaging a user called "@WhiteGenocideTM," or blasting out a quote from Benito Mussolini, or...) Trump would have learned to wait a full 15 seconds before hitting the "Tweet" button. But not only was the gaffe itself bad, the attempts at damage control made the BP oil spill response look a virtuoso performance.  About two hours after the image went up on Trump's account, somebody took it down and replaced it with a similar picture that swapped the hexagram with a circle (bearing the same legend "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!"!). Believe it or not, it actually got worse from there. As reports arose that the first image had originated on a white supremacist message board, Trump insisted that the shape was a "sheriff's star," or "plain star," not a Star of David. And he continued to sulk about the coverage online and in public for days afterward, even when the media was clearly ready to move on. This refusal to just let some bad press go would haunt him later on.
Donald Trump More Or Less Says He’ll Keep On Tweeting as President