I mean--it's not great. But it's not bad, and a payroll journalist on a major paper did it.
It's in the Washington Post. The reporter and editor who did this one are actually "alive" to the fact that Bachmann's a demagogue. In other words, they understand that the mere fact that she's popular with millions--doesn't mean that's she actually produced anything of note for those conservative millions during a ten year career in politics.
That's something that Bachmann doesn't like to talk about, but in this profile the WaPo "goes there" in an interview with her. Interviews with Bachmann in Bachmann-friendly forums (evangelical radio, the Pat Robertson show, Fox News, other forums where conservatives "moderate") are quite common. But, as the WaPo piece points out--Bachmann resists talking to media that doesn't openly side with her political career and proposed agenda.
And that's how we get this, which I found hilarious:
(CONTINUED)
(During the WaPo interview:)
...she voiced frustration with what she regarded as the "media's focus" on her "language." She listened to a question about comments she had made regarding a federal program designed to expand the national number of community volunteers, a measure authored by the late Massachusetts senator and liberal lion Edward Kennedy and signed into law by President Obama. She was asked about her charge that the program would lead to political "reeducation camps" for its young participants.
Dead silence came over the telephone line.
After a while, it was time for the mainstream media's next question. "Are you there, Congresswoman?"
The silence lengthened.
"Are you there, Congresswoman?"
And that's not the end of that particular exchange. (You can read the end in the WaPo article, link below.)
But do you know how rare that is?
- ...that someone in the non-"Bachmann friendly" media is allowed to interview her,
- ...that the interviewer is both willing and informed enough to ask her a about one of her paranoid smears against her fellow Americans?
A moment like that, is like sighting a real live Yeti--mainly because Bachmann, her people and her mentors simply don't allow such moments to happen. Media access to her is notoriously restrictive, unless it clear that the media in question are pro-conservative and pro-Bachmann.
That (I think) is why a question to Bachmann about a particularly ridiculous charge--was met with dead silence. She's simply not used to getting questions like that. I'd also bet that this particular question floored her because after she made the charge that Americorps programs were in fact "political re-education camps," it was revealed that one of her biological children worked for Americorps as a salaried employee. If she had tried to defend her characterization of Americorps as political "re-education camps," she probably knew what the next question would have been.
That's why she adopted "silence" as the best tactic, immediately after claiming that the basis of her support is that she's willing to "speak up."
The interviewer might have taken her down "the Chris Matthews road" (where she claimed that Congresspeople with anti-American values were worthy of media investigation), and another mistake like that is something she and her handlers devoutly wish to avoid in this election year.
This profile is also noteworthy because it points out that Bachmann's only tangible contribution to American political life has been "talk." She's incredibly popular with conservatives despite the fact that she's contributed nothing of note in the way of lawmaking, in the way of statecraft and the conservative agenda. Conservatives confer "hero" status on Bachmann for talk in the tradition of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and James Dobson. (And various conspiracy theorists.)
The astonishing amount of attention Bachmann has received from the media is entirely due to her popularity with the right--which in turn, is based on the "panic" rhetoric that she feeds millions of American paranoids. But when it comes to delivering on the rhetoric--Bachmann's delivery of conservative initiatives is non-existent. (I'm not just talking about her career in Congress; this was also true when she was state legislator.) The rallies are held, the broadcasts are made, the smears are delivered to adoring audiences, and she proposes dramatic initiatives and resolutions that languish and go nowhere--and then she moves on to the next smear.
Conservative voters and pundits do not require their "heroes" to create tangible solutions; demagoguery counts for more than delivery of results. It's refreshing to see a major newspaper documenting that.
If there is a common thread to Bachmann's pronouncements, it is that, other than when issuing a press release, she makes no major pronouncement to anyone outside a favored corps of conservative television and radio talk-show hosts. Access to her became limited in 2008, after her appearance on Chris Matthews's MSNBC show, "Hardball.
You knew that, if you've been reading these regular updates. But now the Washington Post is noticing and telling. The Minnesota political media aren't. In Minnesota, the object of the game that political reporters play is to get "access" to Bachmann, the hottest political commodity in the state. And they know that you do not get access to Bachmann if her handlers know that you're going to ask her tough questions and publish her answers.
Thus, we get articles from Minnesota political reporting professionals like this:
Michele Bachmann reviews 'Saturday Night Live'
By Derek Wallbank | Published Fri, May 28 2010 8:43 am
WASHINGTON — Here’s a fun fact about a member of Minnesota's congressional delegation: Michele Bachmann is a fan of "Saturday Night Live."
At the tail end of an interview this week on a variety of topics, Bachmann mentioned that she's a huge fan of SNL. She said she thinks the show is hilarious.
Bear in mind that this isn't an article from some sort of Minnesota version of "People" or "Us" magazine--this was printed by the MinnPost, an online political news blog staffed by professional political news reporters with serious news credentials. The MinnPost is actually supported by reader contributions! (Those contributions were called into question by some readers after the MinnPost commissioned an interview with Bachmann that was conducted by a fellow conservative.)
Anything, for access to hot copy. A "she's a Saturday Night Live fan!" piece--published at the very same time Bachmann was voting against repeal of DADT. At the same time her effort to permit evangelical military chaplains to ignore non-denominational prayer requests failed.
The Minneapolis City Pages, the state's most popular alternative news weekly knows she nuts. But even they ran a cover story promoting their "definitive" interview with her...which they got by agreeing to Bachmann's terms: questions must be submitted in advance.
Access is everything, to these guys--even if they're sure she's an extremist demagogue. For all I know, the WaPo piece I'm recommending here is part of the same game. Maybe the object of this one was an object lesson: "If you don't talk to us, we'll point out that you're a demagogue and paranoid.
But even if that happens to be the WaPo's strategy here, I commend them for this reporting. If Minnesota's political media had even that much professionalism ("You explain that latest remark to us in an interview, or we'll publish the fact that you won't")--this demagogue's career couldn't have gotten off the ground in her home state, much less nationally.
The solution, by the way, is both easy and newsworthy. News professionals should have been dogging her all along (like I did, like other anti-demagogue activists have been doing for years.) If she won't talk your publication in person: listen, tape, and report what she says in forums where she feels safe making McCarthy-like smears against her fellow Americans and their patriotism. Assign the reporters to do what we do--to listen to her garbage (emitted regularly before such audiences), write it down, and then simply report what she's saying.
It's hot copy in and of itself, because it's an elected official sowing paranoia and hatred. Millions of Americans are interested in a story like that, whatever their feelings about the paranoia and hatred. Put a reporter on her remarks to conservative audiences--her remarks to the conservative broadcast audiences, particularly.
Professional reporters would then be "breaking" a real and important story--instead of leaving it to the blogs, instead of sniffing around hoping to score some "no news," carefully controlled in-person interview. And people would learn: the basis of this career is the perversion of religion in the name of politics, the dissemination of political paranoia and lies as a substitute for substantive achievement.
They might even learn about the national political machine that makes the influence of demagogues like Bachmann and Palin possible. They might even run the crazies out of national politics, by exposing them as such--regularly.
And people would read it. In my experience, people on all sides of the political equation are fascinated by her craziness. Why does the professional political media choose to be last to report it?
LINK: The WaPo profile..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
LINK: Bachmann an SNL fan!
http://www.minnpost.com/...
ACTION LINK: Tarryl Clark, Bachmann's liberal Dem opponent:
http://tarrylclark.com/