I detest what you write, but I would give my life to
make it possible for you to continue to write.”
~Voltaire
There is a disturbing trend at work this election season.
It’s not the myriad of negative ads run by each campaign. No, we see those every election cycle, ad nauseum.
It’s not the smears and distortions, because unfortunately, those too have become par for the course in politics.
It’s not the gamesmanship being played by both sides while the U.S. economy slips into a tailspin, its health care system teeters on the brink, and its foreign policies and the ensuing results are as complicated as they’ve ever been.
No, it’s none of these things that worries me…that literally has literally woken me in the middle of the night as of late.
Rather, it is the demonization of the press during this election cycle that has me at times, ranging anywhere from bothered to downright furious.
We have a long, proud history in this country of a free, unfettered press. So much so that it is often referred to as the “Fourth Estate” or the “Fourth Branch” of government for the checks that it performs on the other branches and political candidates for office in those branches. As Thomas Jefferson said long ago, “The only security of all is in a free press. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.”
Fast-forward about 200 years to today — to the last handful of weeks to be exact — where US citizens have been treated to an open war on the nation’s press as it attempts to vet a candidate for Vice President who has never before stepped foot on a national stage. Who has never done a national press conference. Who has never faced a press corps even half the size of that in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or any of the nation’s other mid-sized cities. Who has never sat down on Meet the Press — a time-honored tradition in this country for candidates for high offices. Who refuses to let reporters do anything but a “photo spray” during her first ever meeting with world leaders at the United Nations, and has granted only two interviews with journalists at all since her pick (to be fair, she did also sit down with Sean Hannity of Fox News, but it’s hard to count a sit-down with a television and radio personality who makes his living as a right-wing pundit as a “journalist” in the truest sense of the word).
And when those two interviews — with Charlie Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS — were widely panned by liberals and conservatives alike as “disastrous,” “embarrassing,” and exhausting the “cringe reflex,” Palin did not humbly admit that she had, perhaps, bitten off more than she could chew, or at the very least admit that she was a rookie at handling the national stage and perhaps didn’t have as much time and opportunity to prep for it as other candidates in the race.
No. Instead, she piled on the news media for being “gotcha” journalists with a “gotcha” agenda. Said she was “annoyed” with Couric for asking her questions meant to help vet Palin and not letting her talk about her opponent’s record.
Charles Gibson — who’s professionalism and impartiality has garnered him the respect of such world leaders as to earn one-on-one sit downs with President Bush, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandella, Tony Blair, Yasir Arafat, and the late Yitzhak Rabin’s wife, Leah, who agreed to an interview with him just hours after her husband’s funeral…who was awarded a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Paul White Award from the Radio and Television News Directors of America, and the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award from Quinnipiac University…whose coverage of the election of Pope Benedict earned ABC a duPont-Columbia Award…and who was chosen as a debate moderator for a 2004 Kerry-Bush faceoff.
And Katie Couric — someone who I’ve never considered a hard-boiled journalist, but rather someone much more suited for personal interest or entertainment type interviews, like those she did during her time on the Today Show with the likes of J.K. Rowling, John F. Kennedy, Jr., or Robin Williams.
These are Palin’s “gotcha” journalists.
(Really?)
And here is a smattering of the “gotcha” questions asked by them:
- Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
- You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
- You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that? Explain why that why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
- You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
- You recently said three times that you would never, “second guess” Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?
- And when it comes to establishing your worldview, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
- Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision? What other Supreme Court decisions don’t you agree with?
- Gov. Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan … almost the exact position that Barack Obama has taken and that you, Sen. McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Gov. Palin, are you two on the same page on this?
These are the “gotcha” questions of the “media elite” out to discredit Palin and McCain because they are running a campaign of reform.
Nevermind that Charlie Gibson himself asked Barak Obama, back in January, about the Bush doctrine, that he asked it of the Republican candidates during their January primary debate in New Hampshire, or that the very same subject was discussed at length during the primary coverage as a whole…or that one of Palin’s policy advisers was instrumental in creating the doctrine itself. And nowhere along the line did anyone mention anything about it being a “gotcha” question.
Nevermind that in this, a time of global unrest that the country hasn’t seen in decades, the above-mentioned journalists are asking the candidate standard questions about foreign policy qualifications and views on middle eastern diplomacy. Or after she said that she was not privileged enough to travel abroad (my word not hers, although she did say, “I worked all my life” and was not “one of those who maybe came from a background of kids…whose parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.”) and said that her perspective on the world came through reading, was asked the seemingly reasonable follow up question, later on, of what newspapers or magazines, specifically, she has read that have helped shape her worldview. Nevermind that this person — the running mate of a 72-year-old with melanoma who released 1,200 pages of medical records — could have either an advisory or direct role in nominating Supreme Court justices should this ticket be elected and that we, the American people, might want a glimpse of how she views the court and some of the decisions its made besides Roe v. Wade.
Palin herself even told Couric that “It would be sexist if the media were to hold back and not ask me about my experience, my vision, my principles, my values.” She went on to say, “I am so happy to talk to reporters…and very happy for more opportunities to do so.”
Yet, the McCain-Palin camp went on record saying that the Veep candidate will not sit for interviews until the media showed her the appropriate level of “respect and deference.” And since the Gibson and Couric interviews, she has not done any additional interviews (other than those with right-wing radio or Fox News), and has not taken any questions from the press corps traveling the trail with her, or the press at her events.
Not only that, but in a seemingly unprecedented move, the press at her stops in Florida yesterday were not even allowed to mingle with supporters there.
And to take it one step further, members of the media were openly accosted. As Dana Milbank reported for The Washington Post, “Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness.”
In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”
This, more than anything else, makes my blood run cold.
You see, I’ve dabbled in journalism enough to know how vital the Fourth Estate is to the shoring up (to borrow a Palinism) of democracy. I’ve worked in politics long enough to know that journalists not only have the right, but the unequivocal duty, to barrage any candidate for public office — not to mention the highest office in the land — with hard, tough questions in order to vet these candidates on behalf of the public. And I’ve been at this long enough to see, firsthand, the integrity and dogged impartiality of 99 percent of journalists I’ve come to know.
As the Seattle Post Intelligencer stated, “Folks, there are some issues that demand unpacking here, and they go far, far beyond Sarah Palin and the question of whether one supports the Republican or the Democratic presidential ticket.”
That couldn’t be more true. Because if Palin and McCain are successful in their bid for the White House, then they have set a precedent that disrespecting the media works…and works well.
And there might be no more dangerous precedent that could be set.
After all, the media has been derided for not asking tougher questions during the holocaust, during the Rwandan genocide, in the lead up to the Iraq war, prior to Enron’s collapse, and most recently, about the state of the nation’s economy and the $700 billion bailout bill that just passed. History has criticized the media that if it might have just dug a little deeper, or a little harder, it could have influenced the outcome of some of these events.
But on the flipside, the media does its job, and as Americans, we all benefit. Think Watergate, or … well, Watergate, I guess. Other examples, off the top of my head, escape me.
And perhaps therein lies the rub. As a rule, I’d argue that the media has not been tough enough.
Seriously. Enough with parity. Enough with equal time. If one campaign is going to grant access, and the other is going to stonewall, why shouldn’t we ask why they’re stonewalling? Why should they be covered equally? Or as Campbell Brown bravely stated:
When you have Candidate A saying the sky is blue, and Candidate B saying it’s a cloudy day, I look outside and I see, well, it’s a cloudy day. I should be able to tell my viewers, ‘Candidate A is wrong, Candidate B is right.’ And not have to say, ‘Well, you decide.’ Then it would be like I’m an idiot. And I’d be treating the audience like idiots.
This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a fundamental part of what our country was founded on and who we are as Americans. Freedom of the press is one of the main things that separates the United States from a long list of other non-democratic countries.
So when a candidate for the vice presidency can’t or won’t answer a question — or a whole bunch of them — our first inclination, as informed citizens should be “Why?”, not, “Why are they piling on her?”. When the rival campaign gets more coverage as a result of greater transparency and access, our first inclination should not be to fault the media, but the opposing campaign for not be as open and accessible as possible.
McCain, Obama, and Biden have all been vetted thoroughly during this 2-year process leading up to November 4th. Obama has done hundreds of national interviews and press avails over his career. McCain and Biden’s likely number well into in the thousands.
And Palin? Two. Two interviews and a couple of questions on 9/11 as she toured the proposed memorial site, with a dash of contempt for the media throw in to most every stump speech she’s given — including that at the Republican Convention.
That’s a slap in the face to the American public, to the media, and to the long, storied history of journalism and its role in the democracy of our country.
Palin needs to set her “annoyance” aside and show a little “respect and deference” to the journalists attempting to relay to the American public just who she is and why she’s qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Not the other way around.
