Outside Voices: Bob Giles Has A Tough Question For The U.S. Press
(Bob Giles)
Not long ago, I was with a group of journalists looking at videotapes of a BBC reporter interviewing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The reporter was clearly well informed and was aggressively pressing Blair when the prime minister's answers seemed less than forthcoming. It was wonderful journalistic combat and highly informative for the audience.
BBC reporters routinely have opportunities to sit down with the prime minister for a face-to-face interview. The broadcasts, which can be seen and the transcripts reviewed online, come off as lively exchanges highlighted by sharp questions, occasional interjections by the reporter and relentless probing for clarity in the prime minister's responses.
These interviews represent a striking contrast with the U.S. television, where there is an absence of spirited inquiry. Public officials are treated with courtesy, which is appropriate, but on balance are accorded far too many opportunities to respond to reporters' queries without challenge. When the reporter fails to probe more deeply, he or she becomes simply an electronic stenographer providing the elected official or official spokesperson a video platform for getting out the message.
A recent CBS News Investigative Unit story offers a case in point. The story reported that billions of dollars spent on the Iraq War may have been lost to contractor waste, fraud and abuse. The story was based on a whistleblower lawsuit that had been obtained by CBS News.
In the segment, forthright and detailed comments were made during on-camera interviews with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who as new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to investigate how taxpayer dollars have been spent in Iraq, and Alan Grayson, a lawyer who has filed dozens of lawsuits against contractors.
The government response came from a "senior Justice Department official" who was not shown on camera and who was quoted indirectly as saying that it takes two to three years to investigate civil fraud cases and, even then, only about one in five meet the standards necessary for prosecution.
If the reporter challenged the official to respond more directly to the allegations, this was not shared with viewers, leaving the impression that the Justice Department got away with a non-response.
CBSNews.com posts videos and transcripts of its news shows, including the work of CBS News Investigates. The unit produces interesting and informative stories, yet there are few examples to be found of effective watchdog journalism where audiences can watch as a reporter presses an evasive or reluctant source.
This is not to single out CBS News. To one degree or another, each of the U.S. television news organizations seems reluctant to pose the hard questions and to probe for answers. As Dan Froomkin noted recently in his Washington Post White House Briefing column, "In contrast to the small-bore questions that American reporters posed to President Bush yesterday about his Iraq policy, two British journalists cut right to the central issue of the president's credibility."
Television's great advantage is that it can take the viewer along for the interview. The audience can look into the eyes of the news source as he or she responds to the reporter's queries. It is what sets TV news apart from print and radio news reporting. In an era when elected officials try to manipulate the news and spin it to their advantage, when they are able to speak anonymously or have hired spokespersons speak for them, this special role of television reporting as visual surrogate for the public is critical. The public knows that reporters who can be seen asking strong questions is one antidote to misinformation.
The premise here is that by failing to ask probing, penetrating questions routinely---indeed, to make that a signature characteristic of reporting on this medium---television news organizations are surrendering a distinct competitive advantage and depriving their audiences of information that spirited inquiry would yield.
The people in Washington, D.C. press corps seem particularly interested in "hanging" with powerful people. If I was the editor of the Washington Post, I would tell my staff that I would send ONE reporter to the Gridiron dinner to report on the activities there. If any of my reporters wanted to attend in a non-working capacity, they would be invited to submit their resignation. I do NOT believe that you can hang around with the rich and powerful, laughing at their lame jokes and acting like their peer at night and report objectively on them the next day.
You want to schmooze with powerful people? No problem, go and do it. Just don't pretend that you're a "journalist" at the same time.
You have a choice to make: speak truth to power or be buddy-buddy with power. Pick one.
On one hand is the: "too much to do, too fast, not enough time to understand the situation, just give me a Powerpoint run down of the most important bullets and I'll make a decision" mentality.
On the other you have a lack of well rounded, deep education in the general audience. How can people possibly understand the subtle fencing of good interviews in such complex times when the audience sketchy on how the government works, what rule of law is, etc.?
Real news loses too many viewers, so entertainment is provided instead. Who can say no to a good, insightful commentary on what's being worn on the red carpet?
graphictruth.com. It started OUT as a comment, but in the words of Mark Twain, I didn't have time to write short.
There's also some very interesting commentary on this story over at fark.com (link in my post)
Finally, american TV guys re afraid to look like jerks by seeming to badger high-propfile politicians. another thing the current administration does well, is to act as if journalists who refuse to accept boilerplate or non-responsive answers are somehw being unfair or disruptive. Print guys have the ability to better control how their exchanges are reported to the reader. TV guys wh consistently ask tough questions are often stuck with footage that makes them look aggressive...
Essentially, Britain is the reverse of the US, where print journalism still does some serious reporting, and TV news, especially cable news, is more tabloid. (CBS is better than most). In Britain, print is sensationalistic and less substantive, but TV programs have actual illuminating discussions about things that matter.
I have seen some improvements. NBCs report on the military's refusal to an RPG defense for our troops, and Anderson Cooper's "Keeping them Honest" segments are more in line with the kind of 60 Minutes style journalism we desperately need.