Here's a scenario that we know now will NOT happen thanks to the excellent efforts of the Left to squeeze Fox out of the Nevada Democratic Primary debate.
But let's pretend for a moment: Fox is hosting a debate and everyone at DailyKos is waiting with sharpened arrows for Brit Hume to ask one of those "gotchya" questions. We've seen it before - they ask a question that is designed not for political discourse, but for sound bites and ratings. A question designed to force candidates back on their heels and, instead of addressing real issues that matter to real Americans, they have to fend off a ludicrous charge that is bound to anger some element of the voting public.
An example of one of these questions is this one from the black/Latino Juan Williams to the black Carole Mosley Braun in the last election's Fox debate.
WILLIAMS: Ambassador Braun, Governor Dean has suggested that states like Vermont, Montana and Wyoming with overwhelmingly white populations really don’t need gun control, in part because of their rural character. But urban areas, such as Baltimore, Maryland, with large minority populations do need gun control. Do you agree?
It's designed to create a wedge between black and white voters, but Fox tried to get away with it because the black reporter is asking the black candidate. It's designed to feed the racists in the Fox audience some red meat. It's designed to mobilize the gun lobby. And it's devised to keep Senator Braun from talking about something substantive and, instead, address something that a challenger said. Furthermore, it takes away from Dean's time to address substantive issues - Hume misrepresented Dean's position which then causes Dean to have to take time away from his next response to correct Hume.
So here's my hypothetical Brit Hume question from the debate that will never happen:
HUME (the question he won't get a chance to ask): This question is for Senators Clinton and Obama. Recently Peter Pace created quite a stir when he suggested that homosexuality was immoral. Your fellow Democratic challenger John Edwards has stated strongly that he does not believe homosexuality is immoral. Do you, Senators Clinton and Obama, believe homosexuality is immoral?
Now would anyone here think that Brit Hume is asking a legitimate question? Do you really believe that Brit Hume or Fox News wants Clinton or Obama to strengthen their base of support amongst America's homosexuals? Or do you think he is trying to drive a wedge between these candidates and their voters. If Clinton and Obama give the strong and brave answer that the Left wants, then they alienate some voters in the middle. If they give the answer that is politically safe, then they alienate voters on the Left.
So, again, why is it that Kos and others fought so strongly to keep the debate away from Fox?
To make sure that our candidates didn't have to answer "gotchya" questions at the expense of real discourse. Because Fox is part of the rightwing propaganda machine.
My hypothetical Brit Hume question benefits ONLY the Republican Party.
So, thankfully, there is no Fox debate and Brit Hume cannot ask that question.
So what happens?
Does the question go away?
No.
It just gets filtered through a different set of reporters. Jake Tapper from ABC goes Murrow on us and plays the role of tough journalist asking had-hitting questions... about whether Hillary Clinton thinks homosexuality is immoral. And then Newsday reports that Barack Obama has been asked the same thing.
Why are they being asked this question? Why are two candidates who have proven progressive credentials (in admittingly varying degrees) being asked this question? Is it because ABC and Newday really want to address the needs and issues of America's homosexual community? (Because, you know, they've been such advocates in the past!)
Or is it for a different reason?
I say it is clearly for a different reason. To make our candidates look weak.
And yet the members of this community - the people among us who are supposed to be the most astute and demanding members of the left - fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Why?
Why haven't people here learned some lessons from the games that the press played in 1999 and 2000 against Al Gore?
Why haven't people here learned some lessons from the games that the press played in 2003 and 2004 against John Kerry and Howard Dean?
These are the same reporters that tore down our candidates last time.
None of them have suddenly come to Jesus.
What will it take for the most informed members of the Left to stop taking the bait?
Last year, Media Matter's Jamison Foser, wrote a remarkable piece about the way the media has portrayed our candidates.
At this point, you'd have to be blind to miss the pattern. Every prominent progressive leader who comes along is openly derided in the media as fake, dishonest, conniving, out-of-the-mainstream, and weak. We simply can't continue to chalk this up to shortcomings on the part of Democratic candidates or their staff and consultants. It's all too clear that this will happen regardless of who the candidate or leader is; regardless of who works for him or her. The smearing of Jack Murtha should prove that to anyone who still doubts it.
Now, before you shout that the problem is not with the loaded questions but with the safe, political answers, remember that this happens repeatedly, regardless of the candidate. The war hero is made to look like a weak windsurfer. The prescient environmentalist is made to look like the kooky Ozone Man.
Those who would apologize for the media's treatment of Clinton, Gore, Dean, and Kerry -- or who somehow fail to recognize it even now -- chalk it up to Clinton's supposed slickness, or Gore's trouble with the truth, or Dean's craziness, or Kerry's liberalism, and on and on and on -- somehow failing to recognize that they're excusing flawed media storylines about these candidates by citing those same flawed storylines. Hopefully hoping for the day when a progressive leader would emerge without these weaknesses.
A storyline is developing already. And too many of us are letting it develop. And even more of us are helping it to develop. All of our Democratic candidates support progressive causes and ideals... some more satisfyingly and bravely than others. And we are beginning to play a role in tearing down these candidates by swallowing the media's storylines.
I call on this community to be smarter. More diligent. More demanding of a greater and more valuable discourse. A discourse which demands real questions and not questions that turn these next eighteen months into fodder for 24-hour news channels.
I leave you with what I believe to be the most telling quote of the 2000 election. It's the quote that lifted the veil of what our national mainstream media is about. It gives us a peek into the cocktail party chatter. And into the twisted, distorted minds of these millionaire reporters that shape the national discourse and help mold the presidency.
It's from Margaret Carlson in an appearance on Imus in the Morning.
CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now...You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
[...]
CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of... But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.
To the reporters who ask such hard-hitting questions of our candidates as "Do you think homosexuality is immoral?" remember Margaret Carlson's words.
These reporters are not trying to raise the level of political discourse, they are trying to dumb it down.
Why?
Because it is is "easy". It is "fun". It is "sport". It is their "enterprise". And it is "greatly entertaining". It increases ratings and sells newspapers... and apparently drives traffic at DailyKos.