 Point. Click. Search. Contents: Archives:
| ||
 by Bob Somerby bobsomerby@hotmail.com E-mail This Page  A companion site. | ||
|
 Caveat lector 26 July 2000 Our current howler (part II): Spotting a cop
It's disappointing, but when Russert began his session with Gore, he borrowed some shtick from "Kit" Seelye. He opened up with a question posed at a recent Gore town hall event:
Hay-yo! You know how thatold game is played! Reporter sifts through three hours of questions, waiting for someone to be stupid or rude. (Seelye said it was three and a halfhours.) Then he builds his story or interview around that one thrilling question. Seelye began her July 15 story with the question which Redman asked Gore. Russert now played it on tape:
That's where Russert's tape cut off. Gore was midway through his reply. "What were you trying to say?" Russert imploringly asked. The Redman question, of course, was a twofer. Not only did Redman ask an embarrassing question, but Gore seemed to make an odd comment. In explanation, Gore told Russert what he may have known—Redman had added the "is it like the woman behind the man" remark, although the mike didn't pick her words up. Gore was repeating what Redman had said. Gore than gave Russert a standard riff about what it's like to serve as vice president. Russert pointed to absolutely nothing of interest about the Redman question. As soon as Gore explained the "woman" remark, he moved on to a different topic. Had Russert thought that the Gore-Redman exchange was so important that it really needed to open the program? Or had he simply decided to open things up with a question that maybe made Gore look silly? To state the obvious, we have no idea about big honchos' motives. But picking out an embarrassing question—and running it right at the start of your show—that's exactly the way a host would act if he were trying to be, say, a "prosecutor." And that's the word that came to mind when Margaret Carlson watched Russert quiz Gore. She approvingly told Imus that Russert had indeed been a "prosecutor," "and he did a very good job," Carlson said. Russert "chopped him up into little pieces" (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/25/00). And Bill Sammon had seen it pretty much the same way. Until Russert made a mistake in asking one question, he "had been brilliantly pummeling this guy all morning," the scribe said on Special Report. Sorry. We don't think that scribes should prosecute pols—and our reasons for thinking that were on display all through the Russert-Gore Meet the Press. From beginning to end, Russert's performance was riddled with errors—errors which tended to "prosecute" Gore, if we could use Carlson's term of art. He misstated what Gore had said about an important fund-raising matter. He spun a court ruling on Elian Gonzalez. His presentation of the Hsi Lai temple was—can we talk?—just this side of malpractice. He interrupted Gore freely throughout the session; one almost wished that Alan Keyes would once again appear to accuse Russert of running for office (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/17/00). He asked lightweight questions on sensitive topics—the kind students ask in their dorm rooms, Carlson said. He baldly misstated Gore's Social Security proposal. He created a jumbled, confusing discussion about Gore's record on abortion. As we saw yesterday, he raised an embarrassing old tale about a Gore "barnyard epithet"—without saying that five solid years have now passed, and there's no evidence the event ever happened (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/25/00). He played a little word game about "White House coffees." There was barely a topic which Russert raised in which the discussion wasn't burdened with spin. He even came up with a question which was "silly," "oddball" and "trivial," Marjorie Williams reported. Williams called Russert "too well-prepared" (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/21/00). We wonder what show she was watching. Minor example: At one point, discussing a serious issue of character, Russert oddly said this:
He "told the New York Times?" Gore's iced-tea comment has been aggressively spun, most absurdly by the Washington Times, but no one till now has ever suggested that Gore made his remark to a newspaper! As Gore explained to Russert, his remark was in response to questions he was asked by FBI agents. The agents asked Gore, as would be routine, if he had left the room during the meetings in question. Respondents must answer such questions. But this is how far the clown-like spinning has gone at the Washington Times:
There is no evidence that Gore ever said any such thing; the Times' misled readers are being handed burlesque. But even the Times, in its silly spinning, knew Gore's statement had been made to investigators. Only Russert, "too well-prepared," somehow thought Gore had made his remarks to a newspaper. If that's the mark of good preparation, the corps' standards are even lower than we thought. Russert's comments about the tea were essentially harmless (if a bit hard to fathom). But other segments of the interview help explain why Carlson saw it as a "prosecution." Carlson praised Russert for playing Javert; we don't think that's a journalist's role. But it's easy to see why Carlson said what she did. Tomorrow, we'll scan some examples. Tomorrow: Was Russert playing dumb about Hsi Lai? How about with Gore's stand on SS?
The Daily update (7/26/00) Missing information: Senator Danforth appeared on last Friday's NewsHour, discussing his conclusions on the Waco disaster. This was the very first Q & A:
Incredibly, there is information in that Q & A that never appeared in the Washington Post or the New York Times. In both papers' page-one stories, two of Danforth's conclusions were never mentioned—that Davidians deliberately started the fire, and that they killed about twenty of their own members. Jerry Seper, of the Washington Times, did quote Danforth on those topics. He delivered the news early on:
Seper put that info up front. But Washington Post and Gotham Times readers never received the information. Neither Susan Schmidt (Post) nor Jim Yardley (Times) got either element into their reports. On the NewsHour, Danforth stressed that how important it was that people find out what really occurred. Maybe the Post and the Times were just being polite. But their readers never read what Danforth says happened—never read basic information which was included in the NewsHour's very first Q & A. When the Post editorialized about the disaster, it said this: "On the fringes of American political culture, the obsession with Waco is probably here to stay." The paper's refusal to inform its readers can only help make that occur. Final note: In the Post editorial, readers are explicitly told in the very first paragraph that the Davidians set the fire themselves. But reporter Schmidt couldn't bear to say it, in her entire page one tale. Commentary by Jim Lehrer, Jack Danforth Danforth clears government in raid on Davidians Waco: Case Closed Investigation Clears Agents at Waco A special counsel finds government faultless at Waco |