Is Mitt The New Hillary?

So, apparently the traveling press corps can't stand Mitt Romney. His carefully-coiffed hair and carefully-glossed answers and glibly not-quite-true statements and signs that suddenly read "CHANGE" and promises to Michigan that he'll put a chicken in every pot and that little smile that never leaves his face that we noticed during the debates early on — all of it has combined to drive the press crazy (cf. Ana Marie Cox's Twitter page). He's not fun and expansive like John McCain, holding court in the back of the Straight Talk Express (cf. John King), nor is he inspiring and galvanizing like Barack Obama (cf. Lee Cowan). He's slippery and mockable and mocked, and not, well — what's that word? Ah, yes — likable.

Okay, fine. That doesn't mean that a member of the press should heckle him at an event he is covering.

By now everyone knows about the kerfuffle — and very near scuffle, from the looks of it — that Romney got into yesterday with the AP's Glen Johnson. Johnson challenged Romney — correctly — on his claim that he didn't have lobbyists "tied" to his campaign (he was saying "tied to" as Johnson interrupted him, a phrase from which he retreated in the ensuing exchange). As everyone now knows — but can feel free to watch on the web here and here and here and here and here and here — Johnson called Romney out at the event at a Staples, saying that Romney's claim was "not true" because top Romney adviser Ron Kaufman was, in fact, a Washington lobbyist who worked on President Bush's campaign. Tussle over Kaufman's role ensued, with Romney saying he didn't run his campaign and Johnson insisting that Mitt was, essentially, full of it. Afterward, Mitt came around to where Johnson was parked on the floor with his laptop and got into it yet again in a cringeworthy exchange that has clearly been catnip for the political crowd.

Great video, yes — but great for the press? I'm not so sure. Johnson was right, and on target — but was it really his place to heckle Mitt Romney and disrupt his press event? I get the whole "reporters aren't stenographers" line (cf. David Shuster last night with me on MSNBC), but there's a wide gulf between stenography and picking a fight. Johnson made himself the story here by challenging Romney so aggressively.

Yes, but look at how much attention this has gotten! Romney's been exposed for his obfuscations and slippery half-truths! Great, fine, but is it Johnson's job to do that, that way? A Romney event being disrupted by a protester is one thing — a member of the press corps doing the same thing is quite something else. (And let's pause for a moment to reflect on how different the coverage might be if instead of the respected AP reporter Glen Johnson it was some punk kid with a videocamera and a "Stop Romney!" website. I'm just saying.)

Or, let's imagine for a moment that it was a reporter calling out John McCain for an inconsistency, or Barack Obama. Probably wouldn't happen, for a variety of reasons, but one of those reasons is that neither Obama nor McCain drive the press corps crazy, and seeing either of them thwarted doesn't elicit a secret cheer from same. I get the frustration, but isn't the press under an obligation to be as neutral to the candidates they hate as they are to the candidates they like?

The exchange made me think of Hillary Clinton — not that anyone's gotten into it with her so publicly (except for maybe Tim Russert at the Philadelphia Dem debate), just that it's pretty well-established that she has, in certain instances (to put it lightly), been covered more harshly than other candidates (cf. Chris Matthews, not only statements re: Bill "messing around" but also re: his personal feelings about her). Earlier this week, Eric Boehlert made the point that reporters covered Clinton's detailed Q&A sessions in New Hamsphire as boring/excruciating wastes of their time (if not that of voters); this after complaints that she did not do Q&As. Boehlert also pointed me to this snippet from TNR's Jason Zengerle:

I was at a dinner tonight with various political reporters who are up here to cover the happenings, and it was pretty funny how giddy/relieved they were at the prospect of a McCain-Obama general election campaign, as opposed to, say, a Romney-Clinton one. Suddenly, the next 11 months of their lives look a whole lot more enjoyable.

I'm not suggesting that Johnson's frustration with Romney wasn't legitimate — sounds like it was — nor whether it was accurate — sounds like it was, and then some. Nor am I questioning that it was part of his job to challenge a candidate on such things — it is. But, for all that Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom is clearly a wanker for telling Johnson "don't be argumentative with the candidate" he was right to call him out for not acting professionally. There's the job you do, and then there's how you do it. On the campaign trail and everywhere else, they both matter.

Comments

[UkieOlie]

Rachel, welcome to the steno pool!
The journalists have a job to do. I'm happy to see any reporter follow up on lies and half truths.

[jayvee]

I've never seen such a circuitous, elliptical, qualified posting. Way to speak your meandering mind, Rachel. I'm just sayin'.

Are you getting paid for this stuff? Do you really think this is worthy of dissemination?

I say hat's off to Johnson, and a pox on the pundits like Rachel, who are journalism's equivalent of parasites, picking over the painstaking reporting of others and pontificating to bolster conventional wisdom, affix labels, establish stereotypes. But, especially, for the sake of hearing their own voices. It's freakin' Orwellian.

We could use a lot more journalists like Johnson, who has enough dignity to do a journalist's job, which is to ask the questions any subject's harshest critic would ask, even if it makes a politician angry or makes goodie-goodies like Rachel uncomfortable.

Indeed, if phonies like Romney knew they were bound to get challenged in public, they might develop a relationship with veracity.

Timid approaches like Rachel's can be deadly--it's exactly the journalistic approach that allowed the administration to railroad us into a disasterous war based on outright lies.

You in the punditocracy should take a step back, forget the buzz you get in your scalps from being on TV, and ask yourselves whether you are contributing ANYTHING worthy to the society, the debate, the culture, the species, the galaxy.

Answer: Very little! You are inspring some pity right now, however. Call your mother. Light a candle. Go to confession. Repent!

[comatoast]

Two words Rachel: Sam Donaldson

[HowieKurtznot]

DAVID SHUSTER IS RIGHT.

Thank you for listening.

[HowieKurtznot]

RACHEL SKLAR IS WRONG.

Thank you for listening.

[dadumdee]

Would you prefer that jounalist don't talk to reporters at all? Should he have submitted his questions to Romney in writing? Fuck your criticism of how Glen Johnson went about doing what even you, Ms. Sklar, admit was correct and a part of his job. Glen Johnson, for effectively muckracking and doing his constitutionally protected job as a member of the free press, should be promoted to White House correspondent. Your posts are starting to creep me out because you subjectively critize others objectivity. You pretend to be an advocate of truth, but, as soon as truth presents itself in a confrontational manner, you cower. Fuck that. If politicians didn't hide so much from accountability and our journalists didnt run from confrontation, people wouldnt have to use campaign events to confront politicians with the truth. From now on, if you're going to keep an eye on the media, make sure you are objective. I bet you won't post anything on the misrepresentation of Obama's factual Reagan observations like you did for Clinton's condescending M.L. King remarks.

[HighPlainsAg]

Johnson "lost it" halfway through a plate of Romney BS. On the one hand, I'm sorry he lost his temper; on the other, I'm no longer patient with the polite civility that lets these liars spew whatever bilge they want and dutifully broadcasts it for general consumption. Net? Go Glen.

[indyny]

Caught your "act" on MSNBC last night making the same lame argument - judging by your phony appearance and posturing, your position does not surpise me. It's about time the press started asking the hard questions, especially to ferret the truth out of the lying snakes that the Republicans are. Pursuing a political candidate for president to give an honest and truthful answer is not "impolite", it is what the press should always be doing. If they had been more thorough and forceful throughout the Bush years the world would be a better place today.