Q: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Breaking: Reporters Covering Spitzer Prostitution Scandal Were Polite to Sources 
  
 It's not exactly a secret that reporters can be deferential, even sycophantic, to valuable sources. An old editor of ours, who was Jewish, actually embraced Jesus as his savior for a little while so that he could get an interview with a subject's mother. We've never done anything like that, but we, like most other people in the media, would still be pretty embarrassed if someone published some of our more ... heartfelt missives. Happily, most of the e-mails we send aren't to people whose correspondence is available under the Freedom of Information Act, unlike those that Times reporters Danny Hakim and Jeremy Peters, the Daily News' Celeste Katz, and Newsday's Melissa Mansfield sent to Spitzer's communications people around the time news of his prostitution scandal broke, which Gawker has obtained in order to provide "an unvarnished peek inside the media machinery." 
  
 The e-mails, Gawker writer John Cook says, provide evidence of the "creeping social and professional alliances that inevitably develop between PR handlers and their overworked, easily manipulated charges in the press corps." The big takeaway? Often, the reporters were polite and considerate to the people they used as sources. They asked permission to write things, made efforts not to surprise people unpleasantly, and used a kind of flirty obsequiousness to get the best access they could. Sure, reading the hastily composed, out-of-context e-mails, they seem groveling and maybe even a little sloppy. But in the end, all of their stories were accurate, and they certainly weren't puff pieces.The Times' coziness in particular clearly paid off: The access they were granted gave them the best scoops — and eventually the Pulitzer. 
  
 Gawker wags their fingers at such methods, however, scolding that: 
  
 Sometimes good reporting — especially of the government watchdog variety — requires an inhuman suspension of compassion. 
  
  
  
 Interesting. Is that how Gawker got this: "Whoring Ex Guv, Wife In Counseling"? Wait, no. They picked that up from the Times. 
  
 The Spitzer Files: How the New York Times and the Press Serviced Client No. 9 [Gawker] ||||| The New York Times broke the story of Eliot Spitzer's hooker habit last year, launching a PR shitstorm of epic proportions. But according to e-mail traffic we've obtained, the Times showed Spitzer's flacks extraordinary deference as the scandal unfolded. 
  
 On March 10, 2008, few people on the planet had more difficult jobs than Christine Anderson and Errol Cockfield. They were the communications director and press secretary, respectively, for New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, and at roughly 1:07 p.m. on that afternoon, the Times went live with a story documenting their boss' entanglement as "Client No. 9" in a federal investigation of a high-end prostitution ring. We were curious what the inside of a PR meltdown looks like, so—following in the footsteps of The State's investigation into the media's efforts to land an exclusive interview with Mark Sanford while he was hiking the Appalachian Trail—we used New York's open records law to obtain e-mail traffic between Anderson, Cockfield, and the dozens of reporters barraging them with inquiries in the days following the Spitzer revelations. 
  
 The e-mails total 1,300 pages, and we're still reading through the stack of paper. Any other interesting finds will be going up in subsequent posts. But what we've seen so far has been surprising: You'd think that, with blood in the water, the traditional coziness that develops between official flacks and the beat reporters who have to talk to them every day would break down into some kind of last-man-standing slugfest. But in the Spitzer case, the opposite happened. The revelations upended the worlds of both reporter and flack alike, and the uncertainty, long hours, and breakneck pace of the scandal actually seemed to throw them together as they worked toward what seems, if you read the e-mail exchanges, like a common goal of getting the news out and behind them. 
  
 Which makes sense on a human level. But sometimes good reporting—especially of the government watchdog variety—requires an inhuman suspension of compassion. The infractions documented in these e-mails are misdemeanors, but—in addition to being an unvarnished peek inside the media machinery—they're indicative of the creeping social and professional alliances that inevitably develop between PR handlers and their overworked, easily manipulated charges in the press corps. And they give the lie to the myth of the vigilant watchdog press that keeps the government on its toes. Next time you hear New York Times editor Bill Keller claim that newspapers are uniquely situated to do the "hard, expensive, sometimes dangerous work [of] quality journalism," remember that his reporter broke the story of Spitzer's dalliances with prostitutes. But also remember the time his reporter e-mailed Gov. Paterson's flack to request permission to call Paterson's former mistress. 
  
 This first installment documents the shocking amount of control that Keller's Times allowed Anderson, a former Good Morning America producer and PR veteran of the Clinton White House, to exercise over his paper's coverage. After bringing Anderson's world down around her head by breaking the story, Times reporters previewed portions of their stories with her before publication, asked for her permission before contacting sources, and let her tell them how to characterize its reporting in the paper. 
  
 We'll begin at the beginning: On March 9, 2008, Anderson had not yet been informed of Spitzer's transgressions. Which makes this e-mail exchange with Times reporter Danny Hakim, who broke the story along with William K. Rashbaum, almost painfully poignant in retrospect. 
  
  
  
 Clueless, Anderson tried to sniff out what Hakim was up to, apparently to no avail (Spitzer himself broke the news to his staff early the next morning): 
  
 Hakim and Rashbaum's story went live the next day at roughly 2:08 p.m., using the Drudge Report Archives' timeline as a chronological guide. At 1:34 p.m., Hakim was still working his scoop, and e-mailed Anderson to make sure he had a detail right about how Spitzer broke the news to his staff. The subject line was, "can i do this?", and the message body appears to be the actual text Hakim planned to write—in other words, he appears to have been previewing his copy for the woman charged with managing Spitzer's image crisis, and seeking her signoff. 
  
 Anderson had a minor quibble with the facts—there was no single meeting at which Spitzer made the announcement—but she objected to the idea of repeating the phrase "ensnared in a prostitution ring," and asked Hakim to simply say Spitzer told his staff about "the matter." 
  
 The original Times story has been repeatedly updated, but the current version renders that detail thusly: "The governor informed his top aides Sunday night and this morning of his involvement." 
  
 Two days later, Spitzer announced his resignation, and the media scrum's attention turned to then-Lt. Gov. David Paterson. Paterson had his own press aides, but Anderson stayed on while Spitzer was still nominally in office and managed the coverage of the transition. On March 14, Times reporter Jeremy Peters was working on a profile of Paterson's chief of staff, Charles O'Byrne. He interviewed O'Byrne for the story, apparently working under an agreement that any quotes had to be cleared through Anderson. 
  
 Anderson replied that none of the quotes could be used, and recommended some of O'Byrne's friends for Peters to call for (presumably positive) quotes, a fairly routine practice. 
  
 Peters didn't push back. He simply asked Anderson how best to characterize O'Byrne's refusal to be quoted. "Say he declined to be interviewed?" asked Peters. Of course, O'Byrne didn't decline to be interviewed—he just declined to be quoted, a distinction that Anderson caught: 
  
 It's a bizarre world where flacks are more vigilant than reporters when it comes to trying not to mislead readers. The exchange continued, with Peters trying to gather competitive intelligence from Anderson and Anderson trying to make sure Peters spoke to the sources she wanted him to speak to. 
  
 Peters' O'Byrne profile eventually ran on March 20, including a proviso that "Mr. O'Byrne would not comment for this article" and several positive quotes from Ethan Geto and Eric Schneiderman, another source recommended by Anderson. 
  
 The PR disaster didn't end with Spitzer's resignation: Just days after Paterson ascended to the governor's office, the New York Daily News reported that both Paterson and his wife had engaged in multiple infidelities. The question of the hour on the afternoon of March 18 was the identity of the governor's office employee mentioned in the Daily News story as one of the new governor's ex-flames. Hakim knew who it was, but the Times would never stoop to delve into someone's private life so tastelessly. Unless the Daily News does it, in which case, yeah, maybe they would. So Hakim checked in with Anderson to find out if some filthy tabloid was getting ready to be first out the gate with Kirton's name, in which case he'd try to beat them. 
  
  
  
 Worried, Hakim sheepishly—"again, if others are calling her"—asks Anderson for permission to make the call. 
  
  
  
 Astonishingly, Anderson gives him the go-ahead, and provides him with her phone numbers. 
  
 Kirton's name came out a few hours later online. The Times never ended up mentioning her name, because only filthy tabloids do that. 
  
 For a sense of the differential treatment that flacks dole out to reporters, have a look at how Anderson responded to Daily News political correspondent Celeste Katz's request for confirmation about Kirton after the name came out—Anderson confirmed it off the record, but offered no contact info unbidden. Perhaps Katz should have asked for permission to call Kirton. 
  
 Newsday's Melissa Mansfield made the same request of Anderson's deputy Errol Cockfield, and got even colder treatment: 
  
 Mansfield didn't mind the brush-off, and responded with the same sort of sheepish, we-don't-do-gossip ass-covering that Hakim employed: 
  
 LOL, indeed. This is just from our first read of the batch of e-mails. There's much more to come. We contacted Hakim and Peters for their responses, but neither reporter agreed to comment for the record. 
  
 UPDATE: Diane McNulty, a New York Times spokeswoman, responded in an e-mail to Poynter's Jim Romenesko: |||||
A:
The New York Times may have broken the news that Eliot Spitzer had a prostitute problem, but it was awfully nice to Spitzer’s staff amid the scandal. Gawker used New York’s open records law to snag a huge number of emails between reporters and Spitzer’s people, and discovered that the paper showed a lot of deference, sending them passages for review, and in one case even letting Spitzer’s communication director spike quotes from an interview it had already conducted. They later asked permission to call David Paterson’s ex-mistress, if another paper was already doing it. The flak agreed, even supplying her number. Gawker says the emails show the “creeping social and professional alliances that inevitably develop between PR handlers and their overworked, easily manipulated charges in the press corps.” But New York magazine mocks the “breaking” news that the reporters were polite to their sources, and notes that the courtesy won the Times a Pulitzer.