This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/kellyanne-conway-reporter.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Kellyanne Conway and Newspaper Face Off Over Warning to Reporter Kellyanne Conway and Newspaper Face Off Over Warning to Reporter
(32 minutes later)
Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump and one of his fiercest defenders, found herself in a standoff on Friday with a conservative-leaning newspaper after it accused her of threatening to investigate a reporter’s personal life.Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to President Trump and one of his fiercest defenders, found herself in a standoff on Friday with a conservative-leaning newspaper after it accused her of threatening to investigate a reporter’s personal life.
Much of the drama played out in public, with the newspaper, The Washington Examiner, publishing an article on Thursday about Ms. Conway’s pressure on its reporter that included a recording of their conversation. Ms. Conway then defended herself on Twitter and told reporters outside the White House on Friday, “If I threaten someone, you’ll know it.”Much of the drama played out in public, with the newspaper, The Washington Examiner, publishing an article on Thursday about Ms. Conway’s pressure on its reporter that included a recording of their conversation. Ms. Conway then defended herself on Twitter and told reporters outside the White House on Friday, “If I threaten someone, you’ll know it.”
It started with a phone call.It started with a phone call.
Ms. Conway contacted the reporter, Caitlin Yilek, on Wednesday to dispute a line in an article from the previous day that mentioned the White House adviser’s husband, George Conway, who has departed sharply from his wife and become a prominent critic of Mr. Trump.Ms. Conway contacted the reporter, Caitlin Yilek, on Wednesday to dispute a line in an article from the previous day that mentioned the White House adviser’s husband, George Conway, who has departed sharply from his wife and become a prominent critic of Mr. Trump.
According to The Examiner, the offending line in the Tuesday story — which focused on the possibility that Ms. Conway could become the president’s chief of staff — read: “Conway has been in the middle of Trump’s barbs with her husband, George, a conservative lawyer who frequently makes headlines for his criticism of the president.”According to The Examiner, the offending line in the Tuesday story — which focused on the possibility that Ms. Conway could become the president’s chief of staff — read: “Conway has been in the middle of Trump’s barbs with her husband, George, a conservative lawyer who frequently makes headlines for his criticism of the president.”
That led Tom Joannou, Ms. Conway’s assistant, to contact Ms. Yilek on Tuesday, The Examiner said. They spoke again on Wednesday, and he requested that their conversation be off the record, the newspaper stated, adding that Ms. Conway then got on the line without saying that their conversation was off the record as well.That led Tom Joannou, Ms. Conway’s assistant, to contact Ms. Yilek on Tuesday, The Examiner said. They spoke again on Wednesday, and he requested that their conversation be off the record, the newspaper stated, adding that Ms. Conway then got on the line without saying that their conversation was off the record as well.
Ms. Conway began by questioning why the reporter had mentioned her husband, according to a transcript of the conversation that The Examiner published on Thursday in addition to the recording.Ms. Conway began by questioning why the reporter had mentioned her husband, according to a transcript of the conversation that The Examiner published on Thursday in addition to the recording.
“So I just am wondering why in God’s earth you would need to mention anything about George Conway’s tweets in an article that talks about me as possibly being chief of staff,” Ms. Conway said to Ms. Yilek, according to the transcript.“So I just am wondering why in God’s earth you would need to mention anything about George Conway’s tweets in an article that talks about me as possibly being chief of staff,” Ms. Conway said to Ms. Yilek, according to the transcript.
The reporter defended her decision, saying that mentioning George Conway was “relevant context.”The reporter defended her decision, saying that mentioning George Conway was “relevant context.”
Ms. Conway asked if the reporter routinely talked about people’s spouses in her articles, to which the reporter responded, “My editor requires us to put in context about people’s families or spouses when it’s relevant.”Ms. Conway asked if the reporter routinely talked about people’s spouses in her articles, to which the reporter responded, “My editor requires us to put in context about people’s families or spouses when it’s relevant.”
After the reporter offered to connect Ms. Conway with her editor, Ms. Conway called herself a “powerful woman” and added: “Don’t pull the crap where you’re trying to undercut another woman based on who she’s married to. He gets his power through me, if you haven’t noticed. Not the other way around.”After the reporter offered to connect Ms. Conway with her editor, Ms. Conway called herself a “powerful woman” and added: “Don’t pull the crap where you’re trying to undercut another woman based on who she’s married to. He gets his power through me, if you haven’t noticed. Not the other way around.”
At the end of the conversation, Ms. Conway said that if the reporter was going to cover her personal life, “then we’re welcome to do the same around here.”At the end of the conversation, Ms. Conway said that if the reporter was going to cover her personal life, “then we’re welcome to do the same around here.”
“If it has nothing to do with my job, which it doesn’t, that’s obvious, then we’re either going to expect you to cover everybody’s personal life or we’re going to start covering them over here,” she added.“If it has nothing to do with my job, which it doesn’t, that’s obvious, then we’re either going to expect you to cover everybody’s personal life or we’re going to start covering them over here,” she added.
The White House and The Examiner did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the exchange.The White House and The Examiner did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the exchange.
In a long statement posted on Twitter on Thursday, Ms. Conway stood by her remarks to the reporter and said, “It seems irrelevant if not sexist to mention my husband in describing me.” Ms. Conway added that she and her husband disagree and agree on “many big things.”In a long statement posted on Twitter on Thursday, Ms. Conway stood by her remarks to the reporter and said, “It seems irrelevant if not sexist to mention my husband in describing me.” Ms. Conway added that she and her husband disagree and agree on “many big things.”
“Exactly none of it affects my position as Counselor to the President,” she wrote. “Exactly none of it is anyone’s business.”“Exactly none of it affects my position as Counselor to the President,” she wrote. “Exactly none of it is anyone’s business.”
Ms. Conway has frequently tangled with reporters. She infamously used the term “alternative facts” in 2017 to describe easily debunked information put forward by Sean Spicer, then the White House press secretary, as he discussed the size of Mr. Trump’s inauguration crowd. In July, when answering questions about Mr. Trump’s attacks on four congresswomen of color whom he told to “go back” to the countries they came from, Ms. Conway asked a reporter, “What’s your ethnicity?”
Last year, Ms. Conway said she did not “respond to or read 99 percent” of the public criticism of her “because it is so reflexive and unthoughtful.”
The Examiner tweeted a statement on Thursday about the recorded conversation from Hugo Gurdon, the newspaper’s editor in chief.The Examiner tweeted a statement on Thursday about the recorded conversation from Hugo Gurdon, the newspaper’s editor in chief.
“Off the record conversations are agreed in good faith and in advance between people known to be participating,” he said. “They are not, and never have been, blanket coverage to shield people who pull a bait and switch, peremptorily enter the conversation, and then spend 10 minutes abusing, bullying and threatening a reporter.”“Off the record conversations are agreed in good faith and in advance between people known to be participating,” he said. “They are not, and never have been, blanket coverage to shield people who pull a bait and switch, peremptorily enter the conversation, and then spend 10 minutes abusing, bullying and threatening a reporter.”