The NewsHour, July 7: An Interview Gone South
Ken A. Bode
July 27, 2010
From Mrs. Dona Jackson, who signs herself "A Questioning Viewer."
What is happening to Jim Lehrer? He has increasingly lost his impartiality. He asks questions of his guests then uncharacteristically interrupts them when they are responding. His interview with Mr. Geithner was almost embarrassing for his lack of impartiality. Mr. Emanuel was ready for this change in Mr. Lehrer and thus was able to get through the interruptions and repeated again and again questions.
Impartiality is gone. It is up to the excellent reporters on the show to try to undo what Mr. Lehrer has done. This is a big change in Mr. Lehrer and not a welcomed one from this household where we have tuned in for the presentation of impartial news.
By way of telling you what was going on in at least one of those interviews — the one with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — let me back into it with a story.
When he ran for president in 1968, former Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy likened the national press corps to birds lined up side-by-side on a fence rail. Eventually, one bird flies to the next rail and soon, one-at-a-time, the rest all follow.
McCarthy's point was that there is a pack mentality in the press. When one defines a new story line, each follows attempting to outdo the other. Out of this a narrative develops. Sometimes there is a basis in fact, other times the narrative emerges from an incestuous press feeding off each other, setting its own agenda.
The narrative is then repeated endlessly and chewed over in news analysis, editorial pages, cable commentary, blogs, you name it.
Take, for example, the widespread notion that President Obama doesn't get angry enough, implying he doesn't care enough. He didn't get angry about the outrageous Wall Street bonuses in firms bailed out by the government (never mind that he said he did). He didn't get angry enough when security was breached by gate-crashers at his first state dinner. He didn't get angry enough at BP, a media obsession so thoroughly masticated that the president finally insisted he did get angry and was looking for the right ass to kick.
But these things have to begin somewhere, and watching The NewsHour on July 7, I saw Jim Lehrer loading up to create a new press narrative. Lehrer's guest for the program's featured interview was White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
This was right at the time the Russian-U.S. spy swap took place and when the Administration announced its immigration lawsuit against Arizona. From the beginning I had the feeling Lehrer was heading someplace with his line of questioning, that he had an agenda in mind.
His first series of questions for Mr. Emanuel involved the spy swap: Was the decision the president's? Did the president sign-off on the spy swap? He said it was OK with him? Wouldn't the president be involved in making that kind of decision? Was the president aware this spy ring existed?
Change of topic. Was it the president's decision for the Department of Justice to sue the state of Arizona? Followed by a discussion seemingly designed to make Mr. Obama appear to be out of touch on important subjects.
After a give-and-take about presidential involvement and responsibility in the Arizona case, Mr. Lehrer moved on, "Let me go at it one other way."
A mildly exasperated Rahm Emanuel replied, "I feel like I'm dealing with my children on their homework."
Lehrer continued, "Let me go back to an underlying point . . . President Obama has been criticized for not being strong enough, not a firm enough leader, not making decision as quickly and firmly as he should…the idea is, is he in charge . . . That is what I'm getting at."
Emanuel responded, "I'm glad after five questions we finally got to the point."
The Chief of Staff went on to point out how quickly and firmly Mr. Obama cashiered Gen. Stanley McChrystal and replaced him with Gen. David Petraeus, concluding with this: "So for you to ask just two weeks after the decision on McChrystal, I think that question is — I hope you take this kindly — a little outdated."
Plunging forward, Lehrer then asked Mr. Emanuel if he agreed with GOP national chairman Michael Steele that Afghanistan "is now Obama's war."
Emanuel's answer: "Well, since there are men and women, fathers and daughters, sons and daughters, cousins and uncles, everybody — all of America, when you send your troops over there, that's America's war. And if you think of it as only one president's war then you don't understand the obligation a country makes collectively . . . And I think that's a horrible way and a wrong way to look at it."
Mr. Lehrer looked a little shell-shocked, but unfortunately he persisted, asking, "Does it still work to blame the economic situation on the Bush administration?" That question gave Rahm Emanuel an opportunity to tick-tock through the problems on the new president's plate when he took office, including the collapsing financial industry, the rescue of the auto industry and wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Viewer complaints ranged from that Mr. Lehrer merely allowed Rahm Emanuel to filibuster to that Lehrer approached the interview with the cynicism of the administration's worst critics.
I thought it was an opportunity lost and a lesson in what can happen when an interview is constructed on the basis of pre-conceived notions. It seemed designed to build a narrative that President Obama has slow political reflexes and is disengaged from key decisions of his administration. Mr. Emanuel convinced this viewer otherwise.