Winners: New York Times economics columnist David Leonhardt and President Barack Obama for a splendidly substantive interview in The New York Times Magazine about the democratization of finance, the future of education and health care, and what the economy might look like “on the other side of the so-called Great Recession.” FCP is always astonished by the unusual experience of reading the words of a president who actually seems to know what he’s talking about. So we asked Leonhardt whether he had ever interviewed any other non-economist in public office who was as knowledgeable about these issues as Obama is.
“Yes,” Leonhardt replied. “One person who I would put in the same category is Hillary Clinton. She’s thought a lot about these things. And, like Obama, when I interviewed her during the primary campaign, the thing that struck me about it was, she really engaged with the questions.
Neither Clinton nor Obama tried to take a question and then run to an answer they’d given a hundred times before. That doesn’t mean their answer was always going to be right, or that they weren’t underestimating the political difficulties. But it was part of the reason I found it so surprising when she called for a suspension of the gas tax during the primaries. And then she went further and said, ‘I don’t want to listen to the opinion of economists.’ Because anyone who talks to her knows that she does listen to economists. She doesn’t always agree with them, but she takes their ideas really seriously.”
Winner: Elisabeth Bumiller, the Pentagon correspondent for The New York Times, who wisely decided that West Point was the best place to go to find out how current and future military men and women feel about the prospect of gays serving openly in the military. The story that resulted from that decision was thorough, sophisticated and balanced—in stark contrast to the last two Times efforts on this subject.
Sinner: Gwen Ifill, for filling her Washington Week program with journalists who almost invariably agree with each other instead of actually debating the issues of the week. Most recently, this was obvious in a discussion of torture in which the only issue the panelists identified was how the Obama administration should deal with the political fallout from the demands for a full-scale investigation and/or prosecution of the officials responsible for American torture. Which prompted this e-mail exchange between FCP and Ifill:
To: Gwen Ifill
Subject: balance
Gwen—
Would it ruin the discussion to have one person who believes that a full investigation of American torture and prosecutions of those responsible for it are the only way to rescue the honor of America? Believe it or not, not everyone who holds that opinion is on the “left.” Your program was not remotely balanced on this subject this evening.
Charles
To: Charles Kaiser
Charles,
Opinion? You were watching the wrong program if that’s what you were looking for
Thanks for the feedback.
Gwen
To: Gwen Ifill:
Gwen,
Everyone at that table obviously believed that investigating and/or prosecuting torture was a political problem for the Obama administration, and nothing more.
That is an opinion, Gwen. The fact that all of you shared it doesn’t make it anything else. It does mean you were incapable of acknowledging any other point of view.
This is why we call it “the Washington bubble.”
I’m sorry Shepard Smith understands this one better than you do.
Charles
To: Charles Kaiser
Feel better now?
To: Gwen Ifill:
Because you obviously don’t get the point?
To: Charles Kaiser
Email is so uncivil. If you ever want to talk rather than insult, feel free to call me during working hours. You know how.
Gwen
FCP thought a friendly telephone discussion about this subject with Ifill was a splendid idea. Unfortunately, after three more e-mail requests for an interview, and four voicemails left for Ifill and her two producers over two weeks, the anchorwoman never managed to return any of our phone calls.
This was her last message yesterday:
To: Charles Kaiser
Traveling all day. Back in DC tmw

Could we have a moratorium on the silly and offensive comparison of people like Rush Limbaugh to Hitler? Comparisons of Hillary Clinton and Madame Defarge are more sophisticated than this stuff, without the subtlety. The objects of Limbaugh's attacks, when using this language, which is so old and discredited (even the users don't really believe it) that it had liver spots on it by the late 1960s, appear to be comparing themselves to the murdered children of Auschwitz with such nonsense, which is why it is offensive.
We laugh at silly phrases like 'liberal fascism' from people like Jonah Goldberg, and wild-eyed rhetorical overkill from the Left is similarly deserving of amused contempt. The net result is that calling people fascists and bigots and racists comes across as the last resort of writers who don't want to engage specific positions.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 11 May 2009 at 01:10 PM
Elitist punks!
#2 Posted by Steve Hunt, CJR on Fri 15 May 2009 at 02:50 AM