Yesterday morning, Hurricane Ralph, presently located in Miami, made an appearance on CNN. Viewers gawked as Ralph went on the attack, spinning at warp speed and proving nearly impossible to control.
Unlike most forces of nature, the Ralph to whom we’re referring has a last name. (It’s Reed.) And he isn’t the province of a CNN weatherman, but a seasoned political operative dispatched to chat with Candy Crowley on “Inside Politics Sunday.”
The appearance by Reed, a senior advisor to the Bush/Cheney campaign, provided a close-up case study into how difficult it can be for a TV reporter with limited time, and the clock ticking, to question the endless stream of dubious spin that spouts forth from political partisans — and once again reminds us that the current, and common, practice of having a campaign operative on camera for three minutes (or less) leaves inquiring journalists at a fatal disadvantage.
At the outset of the interview, Crowley remarked upon the fact that Miami may escape the wrath of Hurricane Ivan, which was at the time lurking off the coast of Cuba. Reed’s response? “Well, we hope so. But under Jeb Bush’s leadership and the work of the various emergency management folks I’m sure they’re ready.” Crowley then suggested that the Bush brothers might benefit politically from the series of storms. Said Reed: “Well, I really want to separate the politics away from the response and the policy of helping those who are in need.”
If Crowley felt spun like a top, she didn’t mention it. But it’s tough to blame her: she had just a few minutes to cover a tremendous amount of ground with Bush/Cheney surrogate Reed, and she likely didn’t want the spot to devolve into an analysis of Florida’s emergency preparedness plans. Nonetheless, the result was that Reed’s little pirouette — nothing to worry about, the magnificent Jeb Bush is in charge, but let’s not get political, okay? — passed unchallenged.
Later in the interview, Reed dragged out the bogus and long-ago-discredited claim that Kerry “voted 350 times for higher taxes.” Crowley tried to cut in, but Reed cut her off, unleashing one of the most fervid bits of political spin our jaded ears have heard: the claim that Kerry “voted to gut, cut or kill every weapons system that’s currently winning the war on terror.” Crowley got in all of three words before Reed interrupted, “That’s what this election is all about.”
Putting aside the question of whether we’re “winning” the “war on terror,” we have to wonder: Every weapons system, Ralph? Care to name them, one by one, and cite the specific votes you’re referring to? And what is the difference between a “cut” and a “gut” and a “kill”?
Later, Reed added that Kerry is “the first presidential nominee of either party to run for president and say if you vote for me, I promise to raise your taxes.” First, half a dozen presidential nominees over the years have vowed to reign in the federal deficit, and there are only two short-term ways to do that — cutting spending, or raising taxes. Second, the only group Kerry has pegged for a tax increase is that two percent of taxpayers earning over $200,000 — a factoid that neither Reed nor Crowley mentioned. By this point in the interview, Reed had already demonstrated “what this election is all about”: Political operatives tiptoeing up to the edge of a flat-out lie, teetering there, and then changing the subject to bring on the next daredevil balancing act.
Reed and his fire-breathing ideological compatriots aren’t entirely to blame for this perpetual charade that infests the civic conversation. Crowley, after all, did try to challenge Reed during the interview. But she’s stuck in a loaded game, and her opponent is shuffling the deck and dealing the cards. Reed knows the cable networks depend on talking heads like him to fill much of their 24-hour “news” coverage — especially partisans armed with simplistic sound bites and primed for political combat. It’s made for a hit-man like Reed (or any number of his counterparts), who can assert whatever he wants, secure in the knowledge that the on-air reporter has no time to fact-check or dissect his words. By the time the viewer has processed one dubious statement — like the “350 times” canard — the guest is already onto another. Any on-message partisan — and certainly one as accomplished as Reed — can effectively neutralize the host’s harried attempts at actual journalism without batting an eye.
The solution, of course, isn’t to offer up a similarly obfuscating politico from the other side, as though a blizzard of conflicting spin somehow adds up to fairness — though that seems to be the networks’ idea of a solution. It’s to demand that guests, even partisans, argue from a base of fact, not artfully worded half-truths.
At one point, Crowley, trying to slow Reed down, said, “I realize that you all have, you know, [to] argue the president’s case …”
But she then changed the subject. So we’ll finish the thought for her: “… however, if partisans from both sides aren’t willing to get at least a little real, why should we let them on the air to contribute to the ongoing crumbling of our own credibility?”
–Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is a writer at CJR Daily.