Over the years, U.S. media outlets have contrived many idiotic ways to strip the English word “exclusive” of its meaning. They claim “exclusive” interviews that are actually old news. They claim “exclusive” scoops that were previously reported. They qualify interviews to enable use of the term: “CNN Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s first national interview of 2016 Race.” (Italics added.)
“Exclusive” degradation, however, entered a new dimension via a Thursday story from the DailyMail.com under this headline:
EXCLUSIVE: Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying ‘here are your enemies’ days before ‘corruption crackdown’ which led to torture and death
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, reported DailyMail.com, “has been boasting about his close relationship with the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser” — Kushner — “and the intelligence which he has told his circle Kushner passed to him.” In November, in what was termed an “anti-corruption” effort, the Saudi government conducted a crackdown on hundreds of wealthy Saudis. DailyMail.com’s sources indicated that the crown prince had “boasted in private that Kushner was the source of intelligence used in the round-up.” Kushner met with the crown prince at an October session in Riyadh during which the “two princes are said to have stayed up until nearly 4 a.m. several nights, swapping stories and planning strategy,” as The Post’s David Ignatius reported last November.
Meanwhile: On March 21, the Intercept published a story under the headline, “Saudi Crown Prince Boasted That Jared Kushner Was ‘In His Pocket.’” It was actually an exclusive, minus the “EXCLUSIVE” hyping. The crux of the story related the meeting between Kushner and the crown prince:
What exactly Kushner and the Saudi royal talked about in Riyadh may be known only to them, but after the meeting, Crown Prince Mohammed told confidants that Kushner had discussed the names of Saudis disloyal to the crown prince, according to three sources who have been in contact with members of the Saudi and Emirati royal families since the crackdown. Kushner, through his attorney’s spokesperson, denies having done so.
After laying out its very own “exclusive,” which added new information about the words Kushner allegedly used when talking to the crown prince, the DailyMail.com story concedes that this particular field has already been tilled: “The disclosure comes after the Intercept reported that Kushner had a late night meeting with Salman and discussed the names of Saudis who opposed his power grab.”
And then DailyMail.com goes on to provide even greater tribute to the work of the Intercept. Whereas the Intercept’s March 21 story included this passage . . .
Access to the President’s Daily Brief is tightly guarded, but Trump has the legal authority to allow Kushner to disclose information contained in it. If Kushner discussed names with MBS as an approved tactic of U.S. foreign policy, the move would be a striking intervention by the U.S. into an unfolding power struggle at the top levels of an allied nation. If Kushner discussed the names with the Saudi prince without presidential authorization, however, he may have violated federal laws around the sharing of classified intelligence.
. . . DailyMail.com’s story on Thursday includes this passage:
Access to the president’s daily brief is closely guarded, but Trump has the legal authority to allow Kushner to disclose information contained in it as the president is the ultimate declassifying authority and legally free to do so at any time. However if Kushner, 37, had passed on names to the Saudis, the move would be a stunning intervention by the US into the internal affairs of an allied nation. If Trump’s son-in-law, however, discussed the names with the Saudi prince without Trump’s specific permission, he may have violated federal laws around the sharing of classified intelligence.
That language is “inclusive” of both the Intercept and DailyMail.com.“We noted the striking similarities between this recent Daily Mail story and our coverage of the Saudi Crown Prince’s dealings with Jared Kushner on March 21. In journalism, referencing others without sufficiently crediting them, isn’t considered flattery,” Rodrigo Brandão, the Intercept’s director of communications, said in an email.
As for exclusives, the Erik Wemple Blog will not pretend to have snagged one in this post. DailyMail.com, after all, has drawn complaints about its copyright practices over and over and over and over.
Attempts to secure a comment from DailyMail.com have been unsuccessful.
