And a more expansive frame might lead to more questions that challenge the conservative givens, rather than explore how effective those givens have been, and will be, with the base. Rosen suggests one:
Senator Santorum, you’ve referred in these debates to the “global warming hoax.” Really, Senator? 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?
I kind of like it. We might call these the “Really?” questions. Here’s one from me:
Mr. Romney, you have suggested in these debates that the way to deal with 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country is “self-deportation.” Really, Governor? That translates to policies that make the lives of these people so miserable that they go away, no matter how inhumane or what benefits they provide our economy. Is that realistic?
Another approach might be to ask the candidates to list both the plusses and minuses of particular knotty policies or decisions, to try to see how they get past sound bites:
Mr. Gingrich, can you list the potential outcomes in the Middle East —both the good ones and the bad ones, please—of an attempt by Israel to take out what it believes to be Iran’s bomb-making capability with military force?
I hope you can push these guys past the tailored bites, John, because the answers in the debates do matter. I find myself persuaded by a piece by a political scientist, Jonathan Bernstein, in the current issue of Washington Monthly. Many Americans and many reporters, Bernstein writes, assume that candidates say what is expedient at the moment, particularly in primaries. And that they then move to the center as they face the larger electorate, and deepen and modify positions as they face the nuanced and complex problems a president sees.
But no, he writes, citing a great deal of research and history:
We can be governed now by measures that were adopted years ago, in some cases decades ago, based on what some candidate said in reaction to the particular dynamics of some now-obscure nomination battle.
Or, to be more blunt: presidents usually try to enact the policies they advocate during the campaign. So if you want to know what Mitt Romney or the rest of the Republican crowd would do in 2013 if elected, the best way to find out is to listen to what they are saying right now.
John, I’m just saying. Try to make them think beyond the primaries to the realities of running the country. Because their answers could shape its future.
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