Last year, we reported on the connections between Media Matters, the Washington based nonprofit founded by ex-Clinton hunter David Brock, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, his one-time target.
The organization, founded with the guidance of Clinton (she consults with Brock) and the hired help of her former associates (Kelly Craighead, Neel Lattimore), combs written and broadcast accounts for anti-Democrat bias, parsing for "errors" in fact, tone and research. Some of the posts are on-point, some nit-picky and slanted, and much of the Web site is topical and entertaining, if you’re into this sort of thing.
But recently, the group has made a subtle but significant philosophical shift, criticizing not only reporters’ stories or broadcast utterances but the questions journalists pose.
Glenn Thrush
An example: Karl Frisch, a former Democratic campaign flack and part-time blogger who runs Brock’s PR operation, recently sent out an email taking issue with Wolf Blitzer on the May 14 Situation Room. In the segment Blitzer asked if Bill Clinton's recent campaign advertisement on behalf of his wife was "the act of a supportive husband or a sign the Clinton campaign is feeling desperate."
Frisch says Blitzer (who was teasing the standard afternoon food fight between J.C. Watts and James Carville) should never have posed that question because he "offered no basis for his suggestion that the Clinton campaign may be ‘feeling desperate.’"
I dashed off the following note to Frisch: "It seems that you are attempting, for the first time that I can recall, to tell a journalist what question is appropriate to ask-- you say Wolf Blitzer has 'no basis' in posing the question-- but how are reporters supposed to get facts without asking questions or positing two polar possibilities?"
He replied: "Your email seems to suggest that a journalist can say anything – no matter how baseless – as long as he or she says it in the form of a question. We reject that premise. Indeed, Media Matters has documented numerous examples of journalists using rhetorical questions in a manner that advances conservative misinformation, as is the case with this item on Wolf Blitzer… Journalists shouldn’t be in the business of asking loaded questions that aren’t based on any discernible fact."
A little snipe at CNN may not seem like much to get worked up about (although Blitzer’s question seemed well within the bounds of propriety) but it’s worth stopping to consider the implications.
Reporters do ask irresponsible when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions that are designed to damage rather than discern fact. (David Brock, who has recanted his self-described "right-wing hit man" reporting on the Clintons, was a conspicuous offender.)
But to protect the republic against old Brockian abuses, The New Brock suggests reporters restrain themselves from posing questions that might be perceived as unfair to the person questioned. And that raises a host of Thought Police questions (if we are still allowed to pose them).
Question 1: How does a reporter decide what’s fair and factual without asking questions whose premises are, from time to time, unfair and unfactual?
Question 2: Who gets to judge whether a question is based on "discernible fact" or "loaded"? Brock?
Question 3: What on God's green earth is a discernible fact anyway?
Question 4: Don’t we get paid to ask loaded questions? (Like, say, "What happened to the rest of that tape, Mr. Nixon?")
It’s only natural that politicians and their surrogates want to limit, restrict or shape reporters’ questions. And it’s only natural that reporters think the public would be a whole better served if they focused on providing answers instead.
Comments (12)
You can figure out if a question is based on "discernible fact" by citing a fact to back up your assertion. Blitzer said Clinton's campaign was "feeling desperate" w/o backing it up. But i do think Clinton is machavellian in her approach to all things.
Asking a probing question is one thing that reporters must do BUT going fishing for a story like Blitzer did makes all reporters look bad.
Reporters wo try to create a story where there is none especially controversy does a disservice to the readers and viewers.
Look at what FOX News did with Obama and the school he went to in Indonesia. FOX and other outlets asked if and almost faux-confirmed that it was a radical madrassa. There was no basis in fact or any reason to suspect it was. But since it was a school in an islamic country, lazy reporters went for the headline and ignored the fact that there was no story.
It has happened here on Spincyclce with john Riley looking for a headline instead of a story (see comments section) http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/03/disgraceful.html#more
Blitzer suggested two potential explanations. That was the only problem with the question. The answer could have been neither. Had he not suggested the "supportive husband" option, then perhaps there would be reason for a hissy fit about a loaded question. Dismissing the "desperation" option shouldn't be a heavy lift for the frontrunner, especially almost a full year before the first primary. Unless, of course, her surrogates are short sighted enough to give the query additional legs by making a big issue out of it. In any event, this group should be dismissed as partisan and agenda driven unless they intend to combat anti-GOP reporting as well.
I don't see anything wrong with Wolf's question. It's either one or the other, it's not implying anything. If you cannot handle a question that tame then good luck getting through 2008. Media Matters just announces what everyone already hears and sees anyway, it's the biggest waste of money and organization I have ever seen. We all know that certain media is biased. Those who are too ignorant to see it are not going to go the Media Matters website in the first place!
It's true you don't want some form of censorship when it comes to questions. But it's also true that, of course, there are good questions and bad questions. And Blitzer's questions was just stupid.
Interesting that Thrush and the "Newsday Spin Cycle" come down on the side of slanted Fox-style reporting. Do you do that on your own, Glenn, or are you under orders?
How is this for a question:
Did the Clintons use their connections to the Establishment/Kleptocrat left to accelerate numerous state primaries in order to exploit Clinton name recognition and torpedo the other Dems?
Or was it Rudy and the Establishmen/Kleptocrat right that accelerated numerous state primaries in order to exploit 9/11 and torpedo the real Republicans?
Well, if the anchors can endlessly repeat stories about John Edwards' haircut and how Hilary dresses, they are fair game for the same type of treatment.
Besides, we all know the anchors are hired for their good looks - and Stone has been selling those as long as possible. Now it's time for him to get the same treatment that all FEMALE anchors get - out when the wrinkles come! Oh, I forgot: there are no female anchors on that network....
"And Blitzer's questions was just stupid."
Was they?
"Who gets to judge whether a question is based on "discernible fact" or "loaded"? Brock?"
Oh come on. That's the oldest dodge in the book. Not everyone who questions you is setting himself up to be dictator.
Interesting that Kelly Craighead is mentioned. She will be a key witness in the upcoming trial in Los Angeles Superior Court -- Paul v Clinton. Kelly knew everything about the money spent on Hillary's 2000 campaign. She was not called in the Rosen trial or in the FEC investigation. It is going to be very interesting.