Morning, Rachel. Longtime (inasmuch as one can be) watcher of your show. Great enjoyer. Don't tell Keith, but I like you more because you provide more analysis -- and if you had Chris Hayes on more often, I might forget Keith's name entirely.
I'm writing to you now, here, for two reasons:
- Because I'm hoping to nudge your behavior ever so slightly; or
- Because maybe I'm overreacting a touch, and this is a good place to get that news gently.
In your show last night, you talked about President Obama (I hope I never get tired of typing that) and his new trick of calling on representatives from legitimate news organizations not named The New York Times -- like, for example, your Huffington Post guest.
In that show, you discussed the matter of the question asked President Bush by a man with dubious credentials who worked for a far-right Web site.
And you more than once said he was a former hooker.
So?
Let's flesh this out a bit more:
A former hooker asked a former drunk a question.
By comparison, every time Obama gets a question, it's a question the press corps asks a former drug user.
Same with Clinton.
When Ronald Reagan was asked a question, it was addressed to a guy who once played second banana to a monkey.
And for about 13 years there from 1932 until his death, and again for at least a small portion of the 1960s, adulterers were addressing the press corps. Commanding the armed forces. Doing everything a president does because -- wait for it -- they were president.
How in any postpartisan world is the man's former job relevant?
Were it his current job, and had he finagled press corps credentials while Huffpo journalists were relegated to Siberia, and had he wandered in drunk and fresh off a trick, that'd be a story.
But this guy was a credentialed member of the press corps. And the relevant portion of his bio that might cause one to question his credentials ought to have zero to do with his sex work.
My friend John worked as an escort for a number of months. Went to a function where he saw many government officials, including one fairly high-profile one. (And no, not Barney Frank. A Republican. And no, I'm not going to tell you which one, so don't ask.)
All with male escorts or partners.
My friend John is now a social worker.
How is his former escort work relevant to his caseload? Would it be relevant if he were up for a promotion?
Would the reason for his former occupation matter there? (It's a hell of a story, at that, but he's a smart guy, and he knew what he was doing, and he went down a destructive path -- not the escort part -- from which he emerged stronger.)
Instead of attacking the guy's former occupation, examine the wingnuttiness of his employer. Look at how "Give me talking points"y his question was.
You did both of those. Imagine how much more time you'd have had for the segment had you not twice referred to him as a former hooker.
Cuz really, honestly, I care more initially about the content of a question (and its answer) than who asked it or what the asker used to do. Those conferences are about disseminating information, not examining the biographies of those present, right?
Right? Press conferences are about the information the person holding them gives out? And unless we have the hypocrisy of a former hooker asking a question that demeans sex work, the questioner's former hookerdom matters none?
Cuz really, honestly, after the last eight years, we should welcome the expansion of the press corps and the president's willingness to answer questions from people whose employers don't regularly raid rain forests. And hammering home the point that a questioner used to be a hooker seems like not the best use of our time.
Love ya lots, Rachel, but this wasn't one of your better moments.
love,
iampunha