Daily Kos

Yo, American Press: Want Ratings? BE THIS GUY!

Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:11 PM PDT

This is Jeremy Paxman.

This is what American journalists are like when I'm dreaming.

Repeat the question.  Force the politician or the politician's mouthpiece to show us how skilled they are at dishonesty.  Force them to get creative; to get contradictory, angry, frustrated and upset, or honest.  Entertain everybody.  I promise you, there will be ratings.  Take press conferences, for instance.

I hate watching press conferences.  A reporter asks the politician or mouthpiece a question, and said person completely evades the question and gives an answer to a question they wished was asked.  And then, if we're lucky, the reporter gets to ask a follow up.  If the reporter is unusually gifted, he'll ask the same question again.  And then it's evaded, and we move onto the next reporter.

But imagine how incredible it would be if there was a hard rule in all press conferences from here on in: if the question asked by the reporter before you is evaded, you have to repeat the same exact question, word for word.  I don't care if you think there are more important things to talk about.  The person whose job it is to answer every question is trying to take the easy way out of refusing to answer a question.  There's a very good reason this person is refusing to openly refuse to answer.  This is when you must press.  It'll be completely entertaining.  I'd tune in every day, hoping for it to go down like that.  The same question being asked of somebody like Tony Snow, Bush, McCain, Dana Perino, or even and especially our top people, 25 times in a row, taking up the entire duration of the press conference, if need be.  

That's my dream.  It's a thousand times more enlightening to figure out the "tells" a politician gives off when lying than it is to hear any opinion they have about any issue.  When we see somebody hedging, we know they're hiding something from us that we need to know.  Once they're in this position, you must not let up after one or two refusals (I know I'm dreaming to expect even that from our press).  We might not find out what we need to know, but we'll know exactly what to look for when they're lying about something even more important next time.  We'll know more about them than they ever thought we'd know.  

I couldn't imagine a more important or more entertaining public service.

I do not trust any politician at all, yet I understand the importance of their existence and their work on our behalf.  Once they're in public office, they are officially in our lives, and deserve all the scrutiny we'd apply to anyone else who has a direct effect on our existence.  If they insist on cloaking secrecy in deflection, we need to expose that and see how far they're willing to take it.  That's the "character" part of "character" which is most important to me when I cast my vote.

Do not worry about politicians refusing to come on your show.  It'll be considered a rite of passage by everyone in the nation, just like it is in England to be interviewed Jeremy Paxman (go here and here and here to see him interview Americans, and see how they do).  Once enough people in the media stop accepting bullshit, there will be nowhere left for politicians to shill bullshit.  As the media, you will move the culture into a place where not accepting bullshit is considered normal.  This, above all things, is your patriotic duty if you're a journalist.

I'm dreaming.  Our press is unapologetically pathetic.  They're almost as much of a national embarassment as the politicians they inflict upon us, the cities we surrender to disaster, our infrastructure, our entire foreign policy, and the new Hooverville style tent cities popping up which they can't bother to tell us about.

Tags: Jeremy Paxman, Press Corps, Journalism, Politicians, Fan-fic, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  Bushtowns. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Ouroboros

    No longer Hooverville.

    Colin: Its symbolic of our struggle against oppression! Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

    by Liberal Youth on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:38:33 PM PDT

  •  excellent!!!! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ouroboros

    wow,  That style has certainly eluded our current Newhouse, carnegie, NOrthwestern trained vidbots who populate our airwaves.

    thank you, I laughed heartily watching the video.

    •  Make sure you watch the others I linked to (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      johnbrown

      Ann Coulter, Samantha Power and John Bolton.  Power handles herself as well as any human ever could against him.  The Coulter and Bolton interviews are so funny and embarassing to watch, it's almost painful.

  •  Great stuff (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ouroboros, Dougie

    he is famous for hating weather reports too!

    If America were to die and an autopsy was to be performed the media would be the cause of death.

    by dynamicstand on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:35 PM PDT

  •  Aaaaaah - wouldn't that be refreshing? (0+ / 0-)

    A truly investigative, confrontational reporter? No spin allowed - say it straight. OMG - that sounds a little like what Billo claims to do.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

    by moose67 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM PDT

  •  Can't get the big bucks (0+ / 0-)

    unless you're an ass kissing little chickenshit

  •  If I may suggest forwarding a link (0+ / 0-)

    to this guy...

    "The road to gas chambers starts when good people find excuses to justify torture and murder. Feinstein and Schumer are enablers."- Larry Johnson -8.25, -6.21

    by Jacques on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM PDT

  •  Both sides (0+ / 0-)

    With regards to the Bolton and Powers interviews, I think there are journalist who give one of them, but few if any who could of gave both.
    I want to not be able to know the political affiliation of the media person(s).

    . . . I believe to have interfered as I have done, . . . in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right.

    by johnbrown on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM PDT

    •  I want to not even wonder (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      who the reporters vote for.  All reporters should know full well that if they vote, it's for the least of all evils.  Any reporter who is enthusiastic in the least bit about any politician is not to be trusted.  I feel like this is common sense stuff we've lost touch with and therefore it's killing us all.

  •  Paxo (his nickname)... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shiobhan

    is pretty good. There is another moment from the last election when he took on George Galloway which was hilarious.

    The little lady with ginger hair in the middle of the clip is called Hazel Blears and is a Blairite and a devotee to unintelligible spin and obfuscation. Also when a junior minister at the Home Office she wanted the police to stop and search all black and Asian men. Woeful form a politician notionally on the left of politics.

    •  I was living in london (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Spoc42

      during the 2003 invasion.  He was very very good at showing Blair, Bush and Powell up - which was why there really was never a majority of people wanting to go to war in Iraq.  Just a few deadenders (Conservatives).

      He is a great journalist who actually does investigative interviews.  I really can't think of an American comparison (sorry - not trying to be mean).  Though Helen the Whitehouse Journalist may be close - if they deign to answer a question - or even let her speak.

      •  The US press shouldn't bother with WH press (0+ / 0-)

        briefings until they start getting real answers, or maybe ever. They're an anachronism. Perino or whoever should be on the (video)phone to each of them directly for a hosted TV/radio/webcast show. The way they work now, they may as well just go to the WH website for answers, though I guess they get a special preview of what'll be on it the next day. Wooh, that's so worth having.

  •  But if you're too hard on them, you won't get (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shiobhan

    invited to all the swanky parties!  Plus, there's no market for that sort of thing.  Which channel is going to pay for that type of firebrand?  Even if they did, your guy would be evaded in favor of a softballer.  Eventually you'd be relegated to the back tier along with all the rags you can get free at the newsstand.

    Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

    by someone else on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:21:20 AM PDT

    •  You are right.. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MackInTheBox, someone else, shiobhan

      but then it turns into a referendum of us, the TV viewer. If the TV viewer values that programme or journalist then their ratings remain high and the politicians have no choice but to offer themselves to hard questioning to get access to a large audience. Jeremy Paxman and the Newsnight programme also produce many good investigative reports and debates that command respect and ratings.

      •  Very true, but they do that in a very different (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        shiobhan

        market.

        It's not that I don't believe the American people would be receptive to such a thing, it's that I'm not sure that enough of them would be receptive to it in time for it to not get canceled.

        Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

        by someone else on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:55:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Brits can do it because they have a state- (0+ / 0-)

          run TV channel with significant funding. Weird, you may think, but true. It works because it operates and is funded independently of the government (by a national earmarked tax on TV ownership). That means there's one place for politicians to go to get their message out directly in a way that people will take seriously. Unfortunately the message that taxation, particularly federal taxation, is bad is drummed in too deep on both sides of the aisle for it to be possible in the US.

          In truth, decommissioning a couple of hundred nuclear warhead would probably cover it more than adequately, but no-one wants that. People would lose their jobs, and that loses votes. Never mind that new ones would be created... And that's all apart from the insane noise there'd be about an INSIDIOUS STATE MEDIA (that is somehow totally different from C-SPAN and PBS), how the TV industry would fall into ruins due to EVIL MARKET INTERVENTION and lots of other nonsense of various kinds, I'm sure.

  •  I'd recommend (0+ / 0-)

    but I'm too late... sorry

  •  It's not just Paxo (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Spoc42

    John Humphreys and and his minions on the Today program.  The brilliant Any Questions on R4 and Question Time on TV.  And PM (and even Women's Hour) have been known to go all bulldog-like on politicians who are trying to defend the indefensible.

    Andrew Marr's book "My Trade" is fascinating on this subject - apparently the Today program was not very important until Thatcher let it be known that she listened to it every morning - and suddenly it became a rite of passage for politicians to go on and get bludgeoned.  I heard Humphreys ripping Jack Straw a new one the other day about refusing to hold an inquiry into the War in Iraq and it made me all warm inside.

    I have a theory that it all stems from PMQs.  Do you think if the President had to answer a half hour of direct questions, live and televised, every Wednesday lunchtime, the US would have a more active media landscape?  Ok, half the questions at PMQs are meatballs - but all the ones from the Tories and LibDems are great.  And occasionally you get a Labour backbencher with a spine too.

    •  It goes deeper than that. The US government and (0+ / 0-)

      in particular the President, Lord help us, take on the role of the Monarchy and Monarch in the UK as a figurehead of the state, and a repository of national pride and identity. IMO, this creates a far too reverent view of the apparatus and potential of state, if not of the particular people who inhabit that apparatus.
      Ironically, separating the two seems to make a more sophisticated view of the process easier as national pride and the (notional) role of politicians are more easily compartmentalized in the mind, assisting greater objectivity. Expectations of the government are lowered to something, IMO, more realistic. Politicians are temporarily employed managers, a matter of necessity, convenience and practicality, not the embodiment of some kind of fantastical ideal or the totemic mascot of a team. They don't even have to pretend to be.

Permalink | 24 comments