Romney, citing crumbling roads and bridges from “the Eisenhower years” in need of upgrades (though in Pennsylvania, it’s more like turn of the century), offered up a rather Democratic response: Dramatic increase in infrastructure investment, public-private partnerships, and toll roads. For local readers and viewers, the answer probably sounded something like that Obama “surrogate” Romney avoided at the Quakertown Wawa on Saturday—Ed Rendell— who as governor advocated leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike and placing tolls on Interstate 80.
Second lesson: Dissect the answer. Often, a candidate’s answer raises additional questions. If there isn’t time for a follow-up question during an interview (and, asking one doesn’t guarantee an answer), reporters should raise the question for their readers/viewers anyway—another form of context.
For Vickers’s third question, he asked Romney whether he would agree to balance spending cuts and tax increases to deal with long-term deficit spending. Here, Vickers got in a follow-up question, trying to pin Romney down on whether he’d accept a certain ratio of cuts-to-increases.
Romney took the no-new-taxes position. But he also added he’d eliminate “Obamacare,” and shift Medicaid, food stamps, and more completely to the states.
Third lesson: Do the math. How does Romney’s idea to send Medicaid and food stamps “back to the states” save taxpayers money? Or, to what extent does he want to eliminate the services altogether? If the math raises questions, those aspects need to be addressed (if not in follow-up questions to the candidate, then for readers and viewers after the fact).
Finally, Vickers chose to focus the last question on Pennsylvania politics. Asked Vickers:
There’s been a certain amount of hand-wrangling here in Pennsylvania amongst some of the leaders of the Republican party about whether or not you’re fully invested in campaigning here and making this a battleground state. Some of the information that’s been reported is that Pennsylvania is not among the first- or second-tier states in the road map to victory for you. Can you elaborate on that for us and for the people of Pennsylvania?
Romney’s answer? He plans to win in Pennsylvania. Not sure what other answer he’d give in that context, but his response did contain this rather amazing claim (in bold) that passed unchallenged:
I’m looking to win in Pennsylvania. You may not see as many ads of mine up as you’re seeing of President Obama, but that’s because he’s raising massive amounts of money. He didn’t have a primary; we did. And of course he receives very large sums of money from organized labor. We don’t have some group that can write checks for tens of millions of dollars and send them to our campaign. So it takes us a little while to build our campaign coffers, but we’ll be working here, just like I am now. This is not my first visit to Pennsylvania. I keep coming back, and I’m planning on winning in Pennsylvania.
Obama has labor unions, yes. The Obama campaign has thus far outraised Romney’s. But Romney has nobody to write big checks in support of his quest for the White House? The Romney campaign was prepared to spend $2 million-plus ahead of the April 24 primary here—a maneuver that essentially ended former Sen. Rick Santorum’s bid. Two pro-Romney PACs today announced a $1.8 millions ad buy here. There are no doubt many challenges on the fundraising front, but big donors to Romney and pro-Romney super PACs are not in short supply (one, former Newt Gingrich-backer Sheldon Adelson, just gave $10 million to the pro-Romney Restore Our Future PAC).
Fourth lesson: Challenge assertions. When a candidate says something that jumps out—like Romney’s “we don’t have some group that can write [big] checks” claim—it needs to be challenged. How does Romney classify his campaign’s largest donors or the larger still donations to pro-Romney super PACs?
It’s not easy to be the reporter in that chair with a pad, a time crunch, and a well-coached candidate. But there are ways to make it a little less easy for that interviewee— with thoughtful question selection and phrasing, and smart follow-ups—and, hopefully, a little more informative for readers and viewers.
- 1
- 2
LOL...
It will be a snowy day in Hell when we see such a similar critique from an Obama interview. But let's see if we can imagine one?
Lesson 1: THE PAST IS THE PAST: Avoid confusing readers by delving into the candidate's past. Issues like drug use, and digging into his associations with radical churches and former terrorists cloud the issues by obscuring the otherwise upbeat and forward-looking tone of the interview. Same thing with his medical and student records and with all the charming little anecdotes in his books.
Lesson 2: CHALLENGE ASSERTIONS - Of all of Obama's opponents, of course.
Lesson 3. IGNORE THE MATH: What's a few trillion dollars here or there to the reader? We know what's good for them, and doing the math (for example by showing that Obamacare will cost taxpayers more than twice what Obama promised it would) only upsets the readers. Same thing with deficits, the unemployment rate, housing prices, wage stagnation, industrial output, etc, etc, etc. When Obama tells us that Obamacare will save the average American family $2500 a year, there's no need to break out the calculators.
Lesson 4: THE ANSWER IS THE ANSWER: We don't "dissect" anything and there is no need for a followup. When Obama speaks, we write (or genuflect). If he chooses not to take questions, be quiet and take dictation.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 20 Jun 2012 at 10:08 PM
@padikiller. What you wrote is awesome, and not only that, it is SO true.
#2 Posted by NMLiberitarian, CJR on Thu 21 Jun 2012 at 01:43 PM
While I was surprised to read this single-voiced dissection of my article, I was stunned by the writer Ken Knelly's assertion that "efforts to reach Vickers to talk with him about the interview were unsuccessful."
Prior to this article, I'd never heard of Mr. Knelly, much less from him.
So I called.
Mr. Knelly told me that he'd sent a single email on June 20, the same day he posted his story about me to the CJR website. No follow-up email. No phone call. No message on Twitter. Mr. Knelly acknowledged as much when I called. Apparently, he sent one email, waited a few hours, then posted his criticisms of me. Here I would note the plural in Mr. Knelly's story: "efforts" to reach Vickers were unsuccessful.
If Mr. Knelly had been at any of the organizations that CJR regularly scrutinizes, he'd be in trouble with his editors. But not at CJR. When I called CJR, a subordinate editor informed me that CJR's media criticism is different from journalism and therefore does not adhere to industry standards.
That's something the broader journalism community ought to know.
As a veteran newspaper reporter and a former professor at the S.I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University, I understand criticism can be at once painful, but is also essential. Patriot-News editors and I would have welcomed the opportunity to elaborate for Mr. Knelly the context of my story and my video interview, and to discuss how both could have been improved. I was not afforded that opportunity because CJR - according to the CJR editor I spoke to - does not consider itself bound by the basic standards of journalism.
That, perhaps, has been the most useful education of all.
#3 Posted by Robert Vickers, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 05:37 PM