OHIO — While it’s rare for a local television reporter to score a one-on-one interview with the president of the United States, the opportunity does arise in the heat of the campaign season. And a Cincinnati TV reporter this week took advantage of his few precious minutes with President Obama to tackle a legally confounding and politically contentious issue ignored by the lion’s share of the national media—the existence of a presidential “kill list” aimed at taking out terrorists.
Ben Swann, a political reporter for Fox 19, made his interview with Obama the centerpiece of a Tuesday “Reality Check” segment, which appeared online under the blunt title, “How does he justify having a kill list?” The segment centered on the practice of using drones to attack individual terrorists identified by the administration, including U.S. citizens who have been killed without due process. Here’s the video (unedited footage of the full seven-minute interview, which touches on some other national security topics, is here):
FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather
As a May article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane of The New York Times reported, the drone strategy has proved effective at killing individuals the U.S. targets. But the policies have also raised thorny legal questions about the constitutionality of presidential-ordered killings. Some observers, the Times noted, believe the drone strike approach is driven in part by a desire not to capture terrorism suspects, and then be confronted by the question of what to do with them.
This is not the sort of material that is often covered on local newscasts. But in his segment Swann dove straight into the material, noting the “enormous constitutional ramifications” related to the kill list and the targeting of American citizens in particular.
His first question for the president was this: “On that list have been U.S. citizens who have not been afforded a trial, including Anwar al-Awlaki. How do you or any president for that matter, regardless of party or person, utilize that power to assassinate a U.S. citizen?”
Obama responded evasively, telling Swann that the question was based on news reports “that have never been confirmed by me and I don’t talk about our national security decisions in that way.”
Back in the studio, Swann responded to that remark by pointing out that members of Obama’s administration had already leaked the information, presumably with his authorization. (The Times article, which has been at the center of a controversy over selective leaks, cites interviews with “three dozen of [Obama’s] current and former advisers.) Swann did something similar later in the segment: After Obama said that killing people who pose imminent threats to the U.S. will help bring troops in Afghanistan home, the reporter pointed out that many of the drone strikes have taken place far from that country, in Yemen.
Swann’s wrap-up, in which he asserts his own view on the constitutional questions:
The way the president played this issue with us is really quite telling. When questioned about the constitutionally of a president, any president, having the power to order the death of U.S. citizens, he claims he never said he has a kill list and can’t discuss it further. A constitutional lawyer turned president using the power that violates the most basic principal in the Bill of Rights, leaking his use of it when it is politically expedient, then claiming it can’t be discussed when it is not. And that is Reality Check.
(Obama, it should be noted, was more expansive in an interview the next day with CNN’s Jessica Yellin.)
Swann’s report generated a storm of links on Twitter, along with praise from The Huffington Post and civil libertarian journalists like The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf and the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald.
He also earned high marks from a pair of experts I spoke with on Thursday. Gregory Johnsen, a Near East Studies scholar at Princeton University whose book The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia will be released soon, called Swann’s interview unusual.

CJR finally recognizes the best TV news-reporter in the business. Bravo!
Ben Swann is the only one who consistently uses the U.S. Constitution to help viewers divine the nature of govt actions. That's exactly what the press is supposed to do if it purports to hold the govt accountable. And hey, what do ya know! He is very popular for it!
Pay attention, MSM. If you hold the feds constitutionally accountable and refrain from lying for the govt or partisanship, then you too may see a big rise in your audience and your income. No special business model needed. Just watch Ben Swann and learn!
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 05:50 PM
Ben has the balls that politcal hacks like Chris Mathews wish they had.
#2 Posted by Dan G, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 06:08 PM
What's with the last paragraph? I live in a city where TV news has been instrumental in uncovering complex government corruption, investigations that took the reporters months or even years to do. I know there's a lot of crap or sensationalistic local TV out there, but I think a bit less arrogance and a bit more respect for the many hardworking TV journalists out there is in order.
#3 Posted by Charles, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 06:09 PM
Incidentally, I'm not a TV journalist. I just thought that was a cheap (and lazy) shot.
#4 Posted by Charles, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 06:16 PM
Way to go Ben! Your integrity and knowledge is a beacon of hope and light in a world of corruption and darkness. Thank you
#5 Posted by Realqueenofspades, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 06:21 PM
Way to go Ben! Your integrity and knowledge is a beacon of hope and light in a world of corruption and darkness. Thank you!! You are awesome dude, go gett'em and keep the media HONEST!! God Bless You!!
#6 Posted by Brett Kitchens, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 06:35 PM
Ben Swann is the best journalist on TV. If there were more like him, this country would be in much better shape.
#7 Posted by Jake, CJR on Fri 7 Sep 2012 at 07:55 PM
Go Ben..
Keep it up! I have been talking about you before this even happened..
No one deserves the recognition more.. No one in the mainstream media at least.
I just hope FOX doesn't try to silence you.
I wish you would do a story on 9/11 and how how building 7 was rigged by explosives. I cant believe people still believe it just happened to be the first steel framed building in world history to come down by fire..
Like this does not completely disprove it all:
http://youtu.be/4tTMMNTisBM
#8 Posted by Justin Hemp, CJR on Sat 8 Sep 2012 at 01:34 AM
When we invaded Iraq, a hornet's nest of terrorists was kicked open. Do you want our troops to be sent to every country that is growing them or giving them refuge? Are we to have sympathy for the people that would like to see every American dead? The terrorists are out there. They are plotting to kill Americans any way they can. If drones get them without us putting troops on the ground, GOOD.
#9 Posted by L. Simone Johnson, CJR on Sat 8 Sep 2012 at 01:56 PM
Simone,
So you advocate American Citizens being executed without trial? What is to stop the government from assassinating you? As citizens of the United States, we have rights to a fair trial.
We should not even be there putting our troops in harms way for no reason. Do you ever wonder why they hate us?
#10 Posted by Ed, CJR on Sat 8 Sep 2012 at 04:30 PM
No one, neither Obama or any other official should have had Awlaki, a US citizen, killed. As far as the rest of the kills and/or information are concerned, where would Fox or most other TV journalists have gone to get the
Kill List if it had not already been written in full on the front page of the NY Times early last spring??? Most of you make it sound as if the commentator on Fox was starting with something brand new. It needed to be spread--yes--but it was already in the news and tv commentator. At least on CNN they had talked about the article when it first came out. If others missed it, then he was doing just fine by questioning Obama on what he did and why he did it for all the hits by drones that have taken place over the past 2-3 years. But who would determine it if Obama didn't?? If someone has to, then he as the Commander in Chief and the Head of the Executive Office should. So he has the obligation and duty to decide if and/or when some thing like that should be done--NO ONE ELSE!!
#11 Posted by trish, CJR on Mon 10 Sep 2012 at 02:03 AM
Swann's recent "hard-hitting" interview of Romney was a tad on the soft side, however. He asked Willard about the Ron Paul delegate "scandal". Apparently the annointers of the highest accolades in journalism-land must have missed it.
Swann will revert to the default setting once he is plucked from the provinces by one the networks. He has shown signs that he is wasting his talents in Cincinnati. When that happens, everyone will be stunned by his vapid and shallow interviews especially when he doesn't ask the "tough" questions because he likes his Manhattan condo, national exposure, and friendship with the powerful.
#12 Posted by Paul Brown, CJR on Mon 10 Sep 2012 at 03:24 PM
Re: Trish - The point is that the president should not have that power in the first place; nobody should.
Re: Paul - Butt-hurt much? Fine. Envy the man, but don't be such a flaming troll.
#13 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 12 Sep 2012 at 02:20 AM
Ben Swann rocks! Been watching him for a year now. Always tons of verified information to support his reports. Excellent journalist!
#14 Posted by Rynosaur, CJR on Wed 12 Sep 2012 at 06:44 PM