To eavesdrop, or not to eavesdrop?

Published Nov 01 2007, 05:37 PM by Adam Reilly

Today's issue of the Hill has a front-page story on the reaction Hillary Clinton's last debate performance elicited among campaign staffers and supporters. The reporter, Sam Youngman, listened in on a recent conference call; here's a smidgen of what he heard:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks [emph. added].

Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.

“I wouldn’t say she lost her cool,” one caller said. “But I would say she lost her footing.”

Now for the catch: the conference-call participants apparently didn't know a reporter was lurking in the background. Earlier today, I asked Youngman if people knew he was on the line. "Well, no," he said. "I was given the number by a source. I didn't misrepresent myself; when they asked for my name and the city, I told them my name and city."

Youngman also said he'd done something analogous earlier this year, when he listened in to a conference call featuring Bill Clinton. "Believe me, it's something we thought about," he added. "We didn't want to be unethical, by any means."

I understand Youngman's desire to get inside precious insider dirt. But by listening in to a non-media conference call, and not fully identifying himself, Youngman violated a tacit contract that bound the call's organizers and participants--i.e., that their exchange would be private. This is different than, say, overhearing a conversation in a restroom, where there's no such expectation of privacy.

Then again, plenty of important stories involve violations of expected privacy. So is this one any different?

Readers, what say you?