Why does it seem so easy for comedians to conduct satisfying interviews of politicians and so difficult for mainstream reporters? For example, check out Jon Stewart’s interview of the RNC’s Ken Mehlman [1]. Stewart’s recent interview of Mehlman powerfully painted members of the current administration as a pack of lying conniving hypocritical thieves.
To contrast, the mainstream media usually stumbles out of the gate. Even when mainstream reporters ask clear questions, they receive heavily spun non-answers which they often treat as answers. As we all know, these heavily spun non-answers reported by mainstream reporters are not valid perspectives regarding important issues. Such spin-doctored statements are actually filler–opportunities for politicians to claim that they answered questions that they didn’t answer at all.
What Jon Stewart does on the above video clip is satisfying because he repeatedly indicates to the audience that Mehlman is failing to answer his straightforward questions. Yes, Stewart does his work as only a good comedian can do, by rolling his eyes, smirking, joking and being sarcastic. But his work as an interviewer is effective because the audience is constantly being reassured that the questioner (Stewart) is aware that the interviewee (Mehlman) is not really answering his questions. Stewart’s questions, e.g., about the metric of success in Iraq or the identities of the oil executives with which Dick Cheney secretly met, deserve real answers. How strange that we get more dependable and important information from five minutes comedian interviews than from reams of newsprint and hours and hours of Meet the Press.
I’m not just picking on Republicans. Democrats are equally evasive (there are only a few exceptions, e.g., Russ Feingold and John Murtha). What would 99% of democrats really do about Iraq? We don’t know, because they won’t give real answers to those questions. Would Democrats continue ANY domestic spying if they took control of the country? We just don’t know. They won’t answer the questions of mainstream reporters. They give the same sorts of psuedo-answers employed by the Republicans.
How can this be? Reporters are not stupid. Editors are not stupid. Why are the interviews conducted by mainstream media so unsatisfying?
My suspicion is that mainstream news reporters find it impolite to label unanswered questions as such. They shouldn’t be so polite. When I ask my children whether they’ve cleaned their room and they answer that they are hungry, I remind them that they haven’t answered my question. If they continually evade my question, I clearly indicate that I am aware of this. When mainstream reporters ask politicians clear questions, the reporters routinely accept non-informative responses to be “answers.” I would suggest a new approach for the mainstream media, a Stewartesque approach.
From now on, when a politician fails to answer a clear question, the reporter should report that the politician failed to answer the question. “When the Iraqis stand up , we’ll stand down” is not a real answer to a timetable for troop withdrawals. It’s empty rhetoric. If the front page is full of articles that particular politicians won’t answer clearly-stated questions (presenting a clear list of the questions) the readers would be up in arms. They might demand change. They might get involved. They might demand real answers.
On the above video clip, Jon Stewart repeatedly underscores Ken Mehlman’s failure to answer simple questions. Mehlman’s failure to provide real answers is really the only information Stewart gets out of Mehlman through the entire interview: Mehlman refuses to answer questions. The interview is intertaining in other ways, of course. For instance, Stewart himself makes many POINTS through his cleverly worded questions.
Here is my fantasy version of a mainstream news interview. Front pages all over the country should start reporting on all the politicians who fail to give clear answers to clear questions. The articles will be short and sweet: Bush refuses to discuss 1) Iraq troop withdrawals, 2) Domestic Spying and 3) the effect of huge budget deficits. The end. And no more reporting of soundbites. To continue reporting evasive and mushy sound bites is to be an accomplice to a national bait and switch scheme. People reading non-informative sound bites are being misled that bona fide answers are being provided. They are apt to consider themselves well-informed by the “news,” when they are not.
Why wouldn’t politicians provide real answers to clear questions? This is a long-standing problem deserving a long discussion. Here is my gut feeling:
1) Becuase they are cowards: They want to be everything to everyone, so they strive to not take positions. Further, if politicians speak boldly, someone might hold them to their promises. If they later alter their answers, they might be accused of flip-flopping. It is difficult work being a straight-talking politician. It takes a lot of time and preparation to do the job honestly. Perhaps if they weren’t going around soliciting money from powerful contributors every day, they could spend more time honing sensible answers to difficult questions. They need to have faith that constituents can deal with straight talk.
2) DC politicians also spend a lot of time hobnobbing with members of the press corp. This is a great thing for them. They strike up friendships with each other and give each other access. It is a horrible thing for the rest of us, because the reporters, fearing the loss of access to these politicians, are not likely to burn that access by repeatedly bluntly writing: “Senator Smith refused to answer my questions.”
3) Finally, it can’t be overemphasized that the newsmedia can only exist to the extent that it sells advertisements. Why, then, would an media outlet willingly say good-bye to half of its audience by exposing the refusal of one party’s politicians to answer questions? FOX, of course, has a “solution” to this problem–FOX has developed a niche audience, so it is free to aggressively attack politicians preferred by those who don’t watch FOX. Jon Stewart’s audience also tends to have a niche audience. [2]
But for those media outlets that still attempt to maintain some sense of balance, the ghost of the advertising department sits prominently in the news department. No matter what they say to the contrary. If this weren’t the case, mainstream reporters would be firing away with clear questions and demanding clear answers. And when they didn’t get real answers, they would report that fact, like Jon Stewart.
Print this post [3]
[4]