About "Face" – Do Critics Want Dumbed-Down Discourse?
Complaints and criticism about the October 2nd edition of "Face the Nation" continue to hit our inbox despite some of our efforts to answer them. So after yesterday's broadcast, I expected more coming in. Grand total of e-mails thus far – zip.
Here's why I'm puzzled. What outraged many about last week's show was the fact that three Republican members of Congress were invited on to discuss problems their party is dealing with, including the indictment of their House leader, Tom DeLay. Host Bob Schieffer's explanation – he wanted to discuss the "Republican problem" – sent some into spasms of indignation. DeLay's indictment is, they argued, much more than a "Republican problem," it's a national problem.
What upset them most was the lack of someone with an "opposing" viewpoint. It seems the idea that each show must have a "Republican" view and a "Democratic" view has become so embedded as to be a de facto programming law. That's why the lack of criticism for yesterday's show is confusing.
The main topic of conversation Sunday was the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The show hosted two Senators – Sam Brownback, a Republican and Chuck Schumer, a Democrat. So far, so good on the format, but where was the balance of viewpoints? Arguably, Schumer went easier on Miers than Brownback did but both had their fair share of criticism for President Bush's choice. Here's some of what Brownback had to say:
For all those screaming about balance last week, I ask this: Why was there no guest on to support the president's selection? Surely there's one Republican senator who would come on and give the White House "line" on the debate. More to the point, why are those so angered before silent now?
Of course the answer to the last question is blatantly apparent. Ideological opponents of the president and the Republican party who saw bias in three Republican guests discussing issues threatening their power saw nothing at all wrong with two senators raising troubling questions about a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court. Politics as usual isn't something just practiced in Washington anymore.
It is troubling, though, that these criticisms are so prominent and, at times, loud. And it's not just "Face the Nation" that takes the heat. Arianna Huffington, whose crusade against NBC's Tim Russert and his show "Meet the Press" is displayed weekly, is unhappy once again today. This week's "Meet" featured Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and conservative activist Pat Buchanan with a spirited debate over the Miers nomination. Huffington's take:
The truth is, having three Republicans or two Miers skeptics or two opposing conservative activists are all pretty revealing ways of discussing the issues, not to mention recognition of reality. When your party loses its Majority Leader in the House (at least temporarily) to an indictment and the president of your party is suffering the lowest approval of his tenure, I'd say there's a "Republican problem" to talk about in there somewhere. Are there other issues? Yes, but they don't preclude discussing this one.
Seeing two important conservatives duke it out over Miers is arguably far more important than any Democratic reaction. The fact is, Republicans have 55 Senators, the majority conservative. If the GOP is unified behind the nominee, they are likely to get a confirmation. When their party is torn apart by disagreement, Miers nomination appears to face daunting challenges. That's the simple dynamic, it's where the action is.
If the Sunday shows, or the rest of journalism, ever start listening to the ideological critics, they may as well consolidate everything into one single program and host the chairmen of the RNC and DNC each week. By doing so, we'd certainly hear "both sides" of just about every issue. Problem is, we wouldn't learn much and it wouldn't inform the public. Perhaps that's what the partisans really want.
© 2005 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. Here's why I'm puzzled. What outraged many about last week's show was the fact that three Republican members of Congress were invited on to discuss problems their party is dealing with, including the indictment of their House leader, Tom DeLay. Host Bob Schieffer's explanation – he wanted to discuss the "Republican problem" – sent some into spasms of indignation. DeLay's indictment is, they argued, much more than a "Republican problem," it's a national problem.
What upset them most was the lack of someone with an "opposing" viewpoint. It seems the idea that each show must have a "Republican" view and a "Democratic" view has become so embedded as to be a de facto programming law. That's why the lack of criticism for yesterday's show is confusing.
The main topic of conversation Sunday was the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The show hosted two Senators – Sam Brownback, a Republican and Chuck Schumer, a Democrat. So far, so good on the format, but where was the balance of viewpoints? Arguably, Schumer went easier on Miers than Brownback did but both had their fair share of criticism for President Bush's choice. Here's some of what Brownback had to say:
"A lot of us wanted to see somebody that was a well-formed jurist so that they had a track record of what they would do in key cases coming in front of the court. And we could have a debate with the country and within the Senate about what this means. … Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record and doesn't seem to be well-Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee which will conduct the Miers hearings, has been one of the most vocal doubters of the Miers pick. Schumer – who spent most of his appearance raising questions about what the White House has told supporters about Miers' views – is, of course, a Democrat who is at the very least initially predisposed to oppose her.
formed in her judicial philosophy, having never been on the bench. And over a period of time … jurists have tended – that have been appointed by Republican presidents -- to veer to the left over a period of time if they're not well-formed in their judicial philosophy. And I think you're seeing both of these at play: one, not a clear philosophical position; and number two, the potential over time of veering to the left."
For all those screaming about balance last week, I ask this: Why was there no guest on to support the president's selection? Surely there's one Republican senator who would come on and give the White House "line" on the debate. More to the point, why are those so angered before silent now?
Of course the answer to the last question is blatantly apparent. Ideological opponents of the president and the Republican party who saw bias in three Republican guests discussing issues threatening their power saw nothing at all wrong with two senators raising troubling questions about a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court. Politics as usual isn't something just practiced in Washington anymore.
It is troubling, though, that these criticisms are so prominent and, at times, loud. And it's not just "Face the Nation" that takes the heat. Arianna Huffington, whose crusade against NBC's Tim Russert and his show "Meet the Press" is displayed weekly, is unhappy once again today. This week's "Meet" featured Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and conservative activist Pat Buchanan with a spirited debate over the Miers nomination. Huffington's take:
"Yes, the two disagree, thereby, I suppose, fulfilling Meet the Press's obligation to journalism by presenting an antiphonal debate. The problem is, Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will be a Supreme Court justice for everyone, not just for the far end of the right-wing spectrum. This is not some intramural squabble about a staff vacancy on the right; we all have to live under the law as Miers will, potentially, decide it."Miers is an issue for "everyone," DeLay is a problem for "everyone" and "both sides" have to be represented. It's exactly those sentiments that threaten to turn the media into a formulaic, unthinking tool for politicians and powerful interests, not to mention dumbing down debate by forcing it into a "Crossfire" parody.
The truth is, having three Republicans or two Miers skeptics or two opposing conservative activists are all pretty revealing ways of discussing the issues, not to mention recognition of reality. When your party loses its Majority Leader in the House (at least temporarily) to an indictment and the president of your party is suffering the lowest approval of his tenure, I'd say there's a "Republican problem" to talk about in there somewhere. Are there other issues? Yes, but they don't preclude discussing this one.
Seeing two important conservatives duke it out over Miers is arguably far more important than any Democratic reaction. The fact is, Republicans have 55 Senators, the majority conservative. If the GOP is unified behind the nominee, they are likely to get a confirmation. When their party is torn apart by disagreement, Miers nomination appears to face daunting challenges. That's the simple dynamic, it's where the action is.
If the Sunday shows, or the rest of journalism, ever start listening to the ideological critics, they may as well consolidate everything into one single program and host the chairmen of the RNC and DNC each week. By doing so, we'd certainly hear "both sides" of just about every issue. Problem is, we wouldn't learn much and it wouldn't inform the public. Perhaps that's what the partisans really want.
Recommended
5 Comments Add a Comment
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- Who do you think your kidding?All major media speak almost as one on anything political.The exceptions are Fox and WSJ.In lockstep against anything pro Bush,pro Republican,pro conservative.The bias is profound and only the most disengaged could miss it.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- People need to realize that there are usually more than just two sides to every story and that the news media should not be forced to follow a formula.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- The reason you didn\'t get much reaction to two people from across the spectrum who were ganging up on President Bush\'s nomination is...wait for it...it\'s completely unnotable compared to the rest of TV, which lines up against the WH at every available opportunity using all available resources. One only mentions a talking dog if the talking dog is somehow unusual. In this case, the MSM wants to play up the ideological conservative split with the WH/evangelical wing (which is, in this case unlike most others, a legitimate angle). So, of course you\'re going to have the conservative opponent who opposes the White House on this, along with a psychonaut-liberal democrat who opposes the whitehouse on everything. This is unremarkable. In those cases where you can\'t find a split in the mainstream of the Republican party, you guys always put up one of the RINO media-#*##&% like McCain or Hagel to represent the Republican viewpoint - an idea laughable on its face. It\'s ever the same, so it\'s hardly worth taking the time to get up in arms about and sending you email over, is it?
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- I am guessing that your implication is that non-conservatives revealed themselves in the original post and are now satisfied with Bi-partisan sniping. Frankly, I had no problem with the internal wrangling among conservatives, but I am suspicious of the whole motivation behind Bush\'s nomination. Isn\'t there a possibility that this nomination is just another bait and switch tactic? Hoping for a big battle from democrats, then switching to a candidate more in line with Bush\'s base? I have no problem with format variety. I\'m just leery of more manipulation and trickery. Especially when the judicial arm of my country is involved.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- Great post Vaughn. Tom in NJ
- reply
