A day before the CNN Arizona Republican debate, moderator John King sits down to take your questions live. Send your questions via Twitter to @JohnKingCNN, then watch for live answers. Join the conversation. (CNN Live)
OK! John is in listening mode.
As for me, I can’t squeeze a thought into 140 characters right now, so I’ll use this forum and hope for the best. Here goes.
Dear John King: We hope you are not spending too much of your pre-debate study time reading the voluminous speculation about what each candidate “must do” to come out ahead in this crucial discussion, and then fashioning questions designed to challenge their game plans, exciting as that can be. Michael D. Shear in The New York Times, for example, was pretty breathless Monday about the “five things” that Rick Santorum “must do” Wednesday evening if he wants to “emerge from the debate with momentum on his side.” He must Look Presidential. He must Rattle Romney. He must Be Authentic. He must
Yeah, yeah. We know it is an exciting moment, what with the setting in Arizona and the focus on Michigan, with the possibility of a new frontrunner on the tricky tightrope, and all of that.
We know, too, that the horserace is not just fun, but important. And we know the winner of these primary horseraces will be the candidate who figures out how best to appeal to primary GOP voters. So a natural frame for a lot of the questions is this: How are you positioning yourself to persuade those GOP primary voters that you are the one? On immigration. On taxes. On the Middle East. On birth control and health benefits. On whatever.
In fact, this Who Is The Most Conservative subtext has been the frame for a lot of the questions in the 19 preceding debates. We know this in part because the Citizens Agenda Project, a partnership between Studio 20, a master’s level program at New York University’s Arthur Carter Journalism Institute, and The Guardian, counted and categorized all the questions in the debates up to now, and published the results.
For one thing, the group concluded, the questions have been serious. The biggest categories of questions were about “Improving the economy and creating jobs,” about the candidates’ “Background and records,” and about “Fixing the government and reducing the debt” (some questions fit into more than one category).
Still, the next two largest categories, were “Campaign strategy and maneuvering,” and “How conservative are you?” These two categories each beat out the categories of foreign policy, national security, immigration, and health care. In fact, Citizen Agenda Project’s conclusion about the quality of the questions—the first in a list of conclusions, actually—was this:
Who’s the most conservative of all? was a preoccupation of the journalists who moderated these debates. When it wasn’t an explicit theme, it was there in the subtext.
My guess is that this was the subtext for all sorts of questions about other subjects that didn’t even get categorized under “How conservative are you?” by the project. Because to win this exciting primary horserace, you have to appeal to the slice of the country that is very conservative. So, Who is the most conservative? is a way of asking, Who is poised to win this part of the process?
But I keep thinking: One of these men could be the president in a few months, not of the GOP primary voters but of the country. Wouldn’t a better subtext for questions be, How would you weigh the complexities of problems in a nation that includes all of us?
For one thing, this might lead to questions about subjects that haven’t come up yet in 19 debates, or have barely come up. As Jay Rosen, who helps run the Studio 21 project at NYU, points out in The Guardian:
Small business got one question. Women’s rights (beyond the abortion battle) got one question. How to prevent another crash like the one in 2008: one question. Super Pacs, a huge factor in the 2012 campaign, were asked about twice.
- 1
- 2
Barack Obama is not just a candidate for President. He is already President. Thanks to softball questions from the press (see '60 Minutes' et. al.), when the President decides to take questions, little critical scrutiny has been extended to the presumptive Democratic nominee.
There is a theory that the GOP hopefuls will have their tough questions out of the way and 'old news' by the time the campaign really gets underway. 'New news' will be what Barack Obama plans to do for the next four years. It will be interesting to read CJR's suggestions for tough (laughter) questions to be posed to the President, when and if our supposedly iconoclastic journalists get around to it.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 21 Feb 2012 at 04:49 PM
"Are you seriously suggesting that the 255 members of the National Academy of Science who recently signed a letter about climate change and the integrity of science have no integrity, that they are engaged in a kind of fraud?"
In case you missed it, Peter Gleick, one of the 255 signatories, just confessed to perpetrating a fraud. He was also the chair of the American Geophysical Union's Task Force on Scientific Ethics
So it seems the answer to your question is "yes."
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 22 Feb 2012 at 02:32 AM
JLD, what Gleick did was fraudulent and wrong (and violated journalistic ethics), but you are equally misguided when you suggest that the other members of the academy are guilty by association. At least one member of every profession there is has, at some point in time, violated an ethical standard. That doesn't mean that every politician, police officer, doctor, school teacher, athlete, etc. in the world is tainted.
#3 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Wed 22 Feb 2012 at 10:06 AM
perhaps king should ask -should a sheriff of one of arizona's counties who harbored a homosexual illegal alien for his own personal gratification yet publicly pronounced his avid zeal to enforce the recent arizona anti illegal immigration laws be removed by the governor from his office?
#4 Posted by jim o'mara, CJR on Wed 22 Feb 2012 at 11:06 AM
"JLD, what Gleick did was fraudulent and wrong (and violated journalistic ethics)"
If Gleick forged that single document, then you can claim that.
Otherwise, the situation is he got an anonymous correspondence, he got documents from a dishonest pr institution to corroborate those documents under a false identity, and he revealed those documents.
These can make a journalist uncomfortable:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php
But Gleick isn't a journalist. This is activism and it is nasty when centrists and right wing activists rush out to condemn a man and destroy his career while using the "he violated some ethics" trope as a reason to ignore what he uncovered.
He didn't lie about the organization, unlike what Heartland did during Climategate. Prove that he forged something before you talk about ethics and violations in the context of the climate denial industry.
for more, refer to my comment here:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_right-wing_medias_discipli.php#comment-57742
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 22 Feb 2012 at 07:33 PM
Someone had the Iran nuke question lined up for Ron Paul specifically. The timing was scripted. We are supposed to believe there are random audience members asking these questions. This was a Zionist shill designed to make Ron Paul look weak on defense. John King converted to Judaism when he married Dana Schwartz Bash. We all know how she feels about Ron Paul.
#6 Posted by Daniel, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 12:06 AM
Curtis, thanks for your note. Of course you are correct - I couldn't resist a little snark. Rosens's query was just so puffed-up and pompous it needed skewering.
It will be interesting to see how the other 254 members react to Gleick's shenanigans. And that most certainly will shed light on their veracity.
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 09:52 AM
More on Gleick here:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/muckrakers-and-sanctimony.html
"Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Gleick has subsequently apologized for his actions, which I think is foolish. Putting this particular form of ethical consideration before the ethical consideration of saving the planet isn't really ethical in my book. By that logic everyone should have disavowed Upton Sinclair because he deceived the meat packing industry which was selling lard made of rendered human fat from the bodies of workers who'd fallen in the vats. Lying to an employer is apparently the worst sin imaginable, second only to giving a false name to an institution with which you have no affiliation at all.
It seems to me that muckraking is especially necessary when the malefactors of great wealth have decided that their financial interests have become so paramount that they are willing to put lives --- and even the planet --- at risk. It takes courage to do what that man did, particularly in this world of overweening sanctimony.
Unfortunately, because so many are anxious to prove their ethical superiority, it's highly likely that the real truths that were uncovered will be tainted and the conservative institutions will be strengthened by it. The lesson here is that if he hadn't done it the documents would not have been revealed --- but that it doesn't matter anyway because people are more concerned about the ethics of revealing them than what they contained. Sad.
Update: Now the conservative think tank in question is saying that the activist in question forged one of the documents. If so he obviously went a bridge too far. But if it's true, it's odd that any right wing organization would have a problem with it. Usually they fete such people like heroes."
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Feb 2012 at 05:14 PM
What do you understand by journalism ethics? Discuss some of contemporary debates in this context.
(600 words: 20 marks)
#9 Posted by nipa dave, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 11:49 AM