Jennifer Rubin on investigative interviews and what has gone wrong:<\/p>\n
TV news personalities are hired in part because they are congenial, likable and watchable. They put guests and the audience at ease. They do not allow pregnant pauses. They bail out interviewees who are at a loss for words. This is the wrong skill set for interrogating a president, especially one who is a serial liar. In nearly four years, TV news outlets have not figured this out; some simply threw in the towel and declined to switch to more effective interviewers because their star anchors draw TV viewers.<\/p>\n
The TV networks would do better to hire people \u2014 lawyers, specifically \u2014 who are attack dogs, who do not care about being liked and who do not care if they get \u201caccess.\u201d House Intelligence Committee counsel Daniel S. Goldman and Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney and now MSNBC interviewer, know how to prepare a line of questions. (Disclosure: I\u2019m an MSNBC contributor.) They know how to listen to the answer and follow up. They shrug off bluster and body language meant to intimidate them. If the job of the media is to hold those in power accountable and to reveal the truth (not maintain phony balance), this is the kind of person you want grilling administration figures. [WaPo<\/strong><\/a>]<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is a lament and critique that’s been told many times since the days of Nixon; indeed, more than once in the 50 years since the Nixon Watergate<\/strong> Scandal<\/em> I’ve seen accusations made that the XXX White House, regardless of who’s name takes the place of XXX, made a concerted effort to charm and bribe the reporters covering them. They are recognized as a threat, especially by those Administrations who do not play to have clean hands when they walk out on the last day.<\/p>\n
But another problem is embedded in Rubin’s remarks: TV news personalities are hired in part because they are congenial, likable and watchable<\/em> … and that garners more viewers. More viewers is more advertiser revenue.<\/p>\n
But revenue is not<\/strong> a measure of excellence. I don’t care how much the media owners bluster and shake their fingers about paying for the service, it simply isn’t.<\/p>\n
Pulitzer Prizes<\/em><\/a> are the proper measure a news service. It’s unfortunate – very unfortunate – that the prizes a new service can win aren’t more prominently displayed and discussed. Hell, we watch WCCO News<\/em><\/strong> for local coverage, and they don’t talk about all the prizes they’ve won – they just say they’re The most watched channel in the Twin Cities<\/em>.<\/p>\n
And that statement is really irrelevant, if you think about it. All it means is Frank and Amelia are awfully darn charming. But has this service won prizes for news coverage? Are you advertising it? No – or at least I can’t tell without digging. So, while I do like the reporters and anchors, I must admit that I don’t know if they’re mediocre or good. About all I can say is that they seem more professional than their broadcast competitors, who I sample on an infrequent basis.<\/p>\n
And it’s a sad thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jennifer Rubin on investigative interviews and what has gone wrong: TV news personalities are hired in part because they are congenial, likable and watchable. They put guests and the audience at ease. They do not allow pregnant pauses. They bail out interviewees who are at a loss for words. This \u2026 Continue reading