IF ASKED, DONT TELL! Howard Kurtz asked a good question. Sadly, though, Simon wont tell: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2008
SPECULATIONS WERE MADE: Weve been meaning to cite an amusing presentation by New York Times sports writer Greg Bishop. Bishop found a convoluted way to describe his cohorts recent bungling:
Speculations were made, the scribe seemed to say. It sounded better than saying this: We made sh*t upand sh*t was wrong.
WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT: We rarely watch the network news shows, but last night, we watched NBC Nightly News. At the start, an unassuming Target/Price Club shopper tossed to correspondent John Yangand wed have to say Yang bungled Obama. In a lengthy report, Yang never defined Obamas position about diplomacy: Yes to diplomacy with Iran (and other states), no to diplomacy with Hamas. But he played tape of Colin Powell saying, Hamas has to be engaged. Given the entire presentation, a viewer might well have gotten the impression that Obama holds that stance too.
It was a very weak reportinexcusably weak, wed have to say. But then, Williams instantly limned McCain in a way we thought was a bit unfair too--and Kelly ODonnell dropped a silly framework around her report on McCains speech. Of course, no one is bungling McCain today quite like the Washington Posts Michael Shear (though this construction seems to be going around). This is Shears third paragraph, in the Posts front-page lead story:
The candidate later said that? You mean, ten seconds later? Shears construction is simply absurdand it sits at the top of page one.
In the Times, Elisabeth Bumiller fumbles about with what she calls a semantic conundrum. Late in her report, she says that McCain predicted, projected and forecast a departure from Iraq by 2013. But as she opened, she used declared. Wed say this is bungled too:
You can defend that highlighted formulation as technically accurate. But later in her report, McCain is quoted telling Bumiller, with exasperation, that he isnt setting a date for withdrawalthat he was simply projecting victory. But thats where Bumiller got flummoxed and bollixed by all the tremendous semantic confusion. If you want to be fair about thisand of course, many wontyou might be exasperated with Bumiller too.
But this is part of what we meant when we suggested, in yesterdays HOWLER, that the press corps wont go after Obama in the way theyve gone after some Dems in the past. Yes, Maureen Dowd has gone over the top and around the bendbut wed guess this has taken her to a place where many friends and colleagues wont follow. The strongest example of that last night was Chris Matthews pummeling of the hapless talk-show host who was taking Bushs position against Obama. Having booked an utterly hapless guest, Matthews beat him up for roughly five minutes. But this was Matthews, Dowds good friend, asserting Obamas position.
Matthews later said that the guest was pathetic. Well actually, he said it about ten seconds later, while the segment was still dragging on.
IF ASKED, DONT TELL: Incomparably, we e-mailed our old pal Howard Mortman as soon as we spotted the error. Back in his Hotline salad days, H-Mo developed a web-era specialty: He collected mis-transcriptions of pundit remarks on cable news programs. And sure enough! This past Sunday morning, it happened again! Howard Kurtz asked a very good question during his Reliable Sources program. But, completely understandably, some poor shlub out in CNN Typistry Land misunderstood what Kurtz had said, producing this comical transcript:
They've got to throw up their leg when Obama speaks? Well guess that Kurtz said something different. Well guess that he really said this: When journalists said, as Chris Matthews once did, that theyve got a thrill up their leg when Obama speaks. Of course, given the weirdness of Matthews statement, you cant really blame a transcriber-of-pundits for misunderstanding what Kurtz later said. But we did enjoy CNNs mis-transcription. Not improbably, we pictured Chris marking his desk with his scent whenever his favorite pol speaks.
Take it easy, Olbermann said at the time. Perhaps from bitter experience.
At any rate, Kurtz asked several good questions during this part of Sundays program. Uh-oh! As usual, he was asking a trio of major journalists to help him evaluate the work of major journalists. Others would see a conflict therebut Kurtz popped his first good question all the same. He asked savvy Roger Simon:
Say what? Kurtz was breaking every rule in the Pundit Book; he was suggesting that the press corps had chosen a favorite during Campaign 08! According to Kurtz, it seemed that they had swooned for Obamaand that theyd shown HRC little love! But did we mention that Simon is savvy? He engaged in a move that might be called Standard Pundit Refusal to Answer:
Slick! Instead of saying what he himself thought, Simon told us what Clinton fans think! But then, Simon has been ducking questions like this for a very long time, as well recall at the end of this post. To her credit, the New York Times Kate Zernike isnt quite that slick. Good lord! Where are standards? When Zernike was asked, she answered:
Zernike needs a lot of work! When Kurtz asked her if she thought the corps had played favorites, she seemed to answer his question: Yes! And she even churned an unflattering portrait of the ding-dong things colleagues had said.
Zernike! Journos dont do this! By law, theyre supposed to play it dumb when asked to explain their groups misconduct. Indeed, this skill has been on display down through the years right there on Kurtzs CNN program (links below). To her credit, Zernike overthrew Hard Pundit Law with this bad wrong thing she said.
But soon, the pundits regroupedeven Zernike. After a passing comment by our pal Karen Tumulty, Kurtz pushed onward, wondering why the press corps had disfavored Clinton. And now, we saw the old skills re-emerge. Even Zernike showcased this skill, offering a fairly silly explanation for the group preference she had described:
Thats more like it! In fairness, Zernikes point may even be accuratealthough here again, she reverted to the practice of reporting what others have said. Our complaint? Zernike didnt seem to be going anywhere near the largest reason for the corps conduct. But to our taste, no one else was spilling with frankness this day. Watch as Tumulty puzzles with Simon about this odd thing that occurred:
Karen seemed a bit puzzled by the irony here. Even though Clinton had been more open, she got the sh*t end of the stick! And Simon, slickest of them all, now tossed in a puzzling new theory. As we all know, his cohort has spent the past ten years praising McCain for talking to the media. When John McCain talks to the media a lot, it proves hes the moral sun god. But uh-oh! Told that Clinton had done the same thing, he now pronounced it the sign of a loser!
Truly, Simon had offered some cosmic nonsenseand at this point, Kurtz quit and moved on. He had heard two explanations for the press corps favoritism. The press corps is more attuned to racism than to sexism. And then too, the hapless Clinton had talked to the media too much!
But so it always has gone on Reliable Sources when journalist panels are asked to explain their cohorts manifest favoritism. In the fall of 1999, Kurtz asked two different panels a very good question: Why was the press corps fawning to Bradley and kicking the daylights out of Gore? Surely, everyone knew the answer; indeed, Roger Simon, who sat on the first of those two panels, had told Kurtz the answer the previous June. But on both panels, everyone stumbled and fumbled about, deeply puzzled by the conundrum. Everyone seemed to agree with the premise: Gore was getting the shaft from their cohort. But try though they mightand they struggled quite hard--no one could say why that was.
For our real-time account of Simons first flim-flam, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/30/99. No one plays this game better than Simon. When Simons asked, Simon wont tell.