What If Jon Stewart, Instead of John King, Interviewed Dick Cheney

Jon Stewart's Jim Cramer interview was a pivotal moment -- not just for Stewart, Cramer, and CNBC but also for journalism. It was a bracing reminder of what great research and a journalist more committed to getting to the truth than to landing the big get -- and keeping the big get happy, and ensuring future big gets -- can accomplish.

Stewart kept popping into my head as I watched John King interview Dick Cheney on Sunday. Each time King let Cheney get away with spouting gross inaccuracies and revisionist history, I kept thinking how different things would have been had Stewart been asking the questions. Stewart without the comedy and without the outrage -- just armed with the facts and the willingness to ask tough questions.

King opened the interview by showing clips of President Obama saying that his administration had "inherited an economic crisis" and "inherited a big mess." He then asked Cheney: "Did you leave him a mess?"

"I don't think you can blame the Bush administration for the creation of those circumstances," responded Cheney. "It's a global financial problem... So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration, that's interesting rhetoric but I don't think anybody really cares a lot about that."

"You are pretending that you are a dew-eyed innocent," Stewart might have said, as he did to Cramer. But even without Stewartesque flourishes, shouldn't King have challenged Cheney's ludicrous claim with some facts about how the fervor for financial deregulation championed by the Bush administration fueled the economic meltdown? Instead, King let Cheney off the hook: "We may get back to how we got here. But let's talk about where we are."

But what's the point of having one of the architects of how we got here on your show if you're not willing to ask them questions about it?

Is there any sentient human being -- other than Bush apologists -- disputing that the Bush administration left Obama a mess? And that for 8 years, the Bush administration promoted the financial deregulation that led to the meltdown? Indeed, as recently as last spring, Hank Paulson was calling for less supervision of Wall Street.

What if King had asked Cheney to respond to the way the SEC was dismantled under his watch, citing quotes about SEC chair Chris Cox from former SEC officials. Here are three King could have picked from: "[Cox] in many ways worked to dismantle the SEC"; "It was like someone poured molasses on the enforcement division"; "Cox worshiped at the same altar of deregulation as the rest of the Bush administration worshiped at."

After all, even Cox, testifying in front of the Senate Banking Committee in September, admitted that deregulation was the cause of the crisis.

But we got none of that from King. Instead, Cheney was allowed to deliver the fully discredited GOP talking points that try to pin the blame for the economic crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "As best I can tell," Cheney told King, "from looking at the evidence, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was one of the key ingredients that caused the subsequent financial problem and economic recession... and I think the collapse of those two institutions, as much as anything, contributed to the financial difficulties we've been living with since."

I could just hear Stewart saying: "But Fannie and Freddie were specifically prohibited from the kind of subprime lending that was at the heart of the meltdown. In fact, Fannie and Freddie could only buy mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their incomes, which is the exact opposite of a subprime loan. So, could you tell us exactly what 'evidence' you have been 'looking at' that would lead you to say they 'caused' the financial crisis?"

Instead, King again let Cheney off the hook, saying he wanted "to move on to other issues." And even when King did bring out data to refute Cheney's spin, he repeatedly undercut the impact by distancing himself from the hard, cold facts that he was quoting. Check out this master's class in how an "objective" journalist can act as if there is no objective reality (mealy-mouthed qualifiers in bold):

KING: There are people I assume watching this interview right now, and people in this town who would say, why should we listen to you? And they would say that because of the context of the Bush administration numbers.

They would say, you know, what did you do when you were in charge? And they have some numbers to back up their case. And I want to show some to our viewers. When you came to office, the unemployment rate in the country was 4.2 percent, when you left it was 7.6 percent. The number of Americans in poverty when you arrived: just under 33 million, over 37 million when you left. The number without health insurance: a little over 41 million when you came, over 45 million approaching 46 million when you left. And you came with a budget surplus of $128 billion and in the final year, the budget deficit was a record $1.3 trillion.

So what would you say to someone out there watching this who is saying, why should they listen to you?

"There are people..." "They would say..." "And they have some numbers to back up their case."

These are not some numbers that belong to some people being trotted to make their case. These numbers are actual data -- empirical evidence. It would be as if King were interviewing a flat-earther and asked him: "There are people on this planet, watching this interview right now, who would say that the earth is round. And they have some pictures taken from outer space to back up their case. So what would you say to someone out there who is saying that?"

King's desperate attempt to distance himself from the question would be laughable if it weren't so repellent. It's not him asking Cheney why we should listen to him. It's not him putting forward objective data. It's some strawman viewers, so please don't hold it against him. And please, please come back. And tell your friends.

This is the problem with King and too many in the Pontius Pilate traditional media: They are so caught up in the obsolete notion that the truth always lies in the middle, they have to pretend that there are two sides to every issue -- and even two sides to straightforward data.

Someone needs to kidnap King and take him to a deprogramming center -- preferably one run by Jon Stewart and his team.

That way, the next time a denier of truth or an apologist for the broken status quo -- whether Republican or Democrat -- sits across from him, King can skip the qualifiers and do what journalists are supposed to do: hold public figures' feet to the fire. If it will help, he can even crib a line or two from Stewart's Cramer interview:

KING: Mr. Cheney, these Wall Street guys were on a Sherman's March through their companies financed by our 401ks and all the incentives of their companies were for short-term profit. And they burned the fucking house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on.

Okay, King could have dropped the "fucking" -- but how much would you have paid to watch Cheney's response to that one?

Until the Jon Stewart Journalism Deprogramming Center opens for business, all TV interviewers should ask themselves a simple question right before the camera goes on: What would Jon Stewart do?

Comments

[Gotcha54]

I like the point that Arianna made in that both sides have a story or something to that effect. I think it goes to the "fair and balanced" approach that news organizations want to trot out. However, if 80 people feel strongly about say a particular crime and 20 people have a completely opposite view. Now does being "fair and balanced" mean that both get equal time?

News now is about the moment. I recall the coverage of the hurricane that hit downtown Houston. Well as soon as the winds died down the newtworks were out of there in a flash and I haven't heard one bit of info about it since. They talked about the windows falling out of the highrises - well I wanted to know how many windows and now are the others structurly sound to walk under.

I sure hope that Arianna is successful in her endeavor. CNBC wasn't the only one asleep at the switch! I think all news outlets were at least a bit complicent in the whole economic mess. Just because CNBC didn't uncover it doesn't mean others weren't allow to!

But lets not just turn to Katrina every year only on it's aniversary and report how things are still amuk there. Someone needs to dig in and find out why and make it news - it's called reporting. Do you think if Martha's Vineyard was hit and damaged like Katrina was it would still be a blighted area? I think not!

[Gotcha54]

It's becoming so much about the person's name heading the show it's sickening. They're not news shows anymore. They're infomercials touting books of both the interviewer and interviewee - and perhaps the camera man and the person running the teleprompter. I am so fed up with this "portrayal" of what is supposed to be news.

I was a big watcher of MSNBC both in the morning and afternoon. Now I just watch Keith and that's about it. Morning Joe forget about it - it has gone so far over the edge it's not worth anyone's time. Chris Matthews - he makes a mistake and says something before Jindal's response to Obama and suddenly he has to side with the Repub's and even tells Tom Delay he is welcome on his show anytime. Why????? And what is with his enuciation of Cheney - as if he is the only person in the whole world that correctly pronounces his name.

I'm going to give Arianna a good look but if nobody comes on because they're scared of her what's the use. It will only be good if everyone pretty much did it. And lastly - if it's a news show make a pledge there will be no book peddling on the show!

[Lee Young]

The press -- everything from the print to the electronic media -- does not ask the tough questions nor do they play hardball when an answer is forthcoming. This was so true during the 8 years of Bush-Chaney. We have really yet to see if the press is still self-muzzled during the Obama years. I refuse to watch the local Fox affiliate for one reason - that network is nothing but the GOP's mouthpiece.

[Gotcha54]

I'm with you on the Fox network - I haven't watched anything on their network other than sports for over 5 years. Also, when I walk into an establishment with a TV and they have FOX on I get an eerie feeling come over me. The sad part is it was the station that was on at all the Veteran Administration medical centers. I hope Obama made some sort of decision to either change the channel or take out the TV's.

[jdl51]

The problem is that most of the top correspondents for the MSM are in the upper tax brackets and want to protect their incomes so they pander to the repubs. This is just another example of a reporter intentionally letting a repub off the hook with softball questions and no meaningful followup.

[OttotheScourge]

Stations like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are so intent on MAKING news that they fail to REPORT it.

[MDHutchinson]

"This is the problem with King and too many in the Pontius Pilate traditional media: They are so caught up in the obsolete notion that the truth always lies in the middle, they have to pretend that there are two sides to every issue -- and even two sides to straightforward data."

Amen! This is precisely why I consider CNN the most dangerous news network out there. Sure, the FOXNews claim of fair and balanced is laughable and it's definitely irresponsible for the producers to allow paranoid schizos like Glenn Beck to have a public forum, but most people accept that FOX aims its programming at a particular viewership. People watch in order to have their beliefs reaffirmed.
But most viewers go to CNN for actual news and instead they end up being fed this false belief that all points are created equal, even when the facts disagree. It's gotten to the point where the only place I can go for objective analysis seems to be Nate Silver's site (sorry HuffPo. You guys are great, but, unlike FOX viewers, I recognize that there's an ideology that guides what stories you choose to post and how you like to disseminate that information. Nothing wrong with that...unlike CNN, you at least have a backbone.)

[Hellataz]

I couldn't agree with you more, I said this very thing after watching that pathetic interview by King.

But I wasn't surprised by his powder puff interview style one bit.

The problem with journalism today is that that journalist are concerned more for ratings then substance. They give into censoring demands from their interviewees to get them to come onto their show. Most of these high profile people would not do these interviews without demanding that certain topics not be addressed or even as far to say they wont come on at all unless they know in advance what questions they will be asked.

Most of the Media is only interested in the salacious stories, the shocking and juicy gossip, so they will do, say and promise anything to get high profile guest to agree to their interviews. They mistakenly think that just having these controversial people on their shows is enough, but they are wrong. What would really boost ratings is too see these people be put on the hot seat, because despite the tabloid fame that surrounds them, it's their story, their lies, their excuses, their reactions to hard hitting questions, that's what is far more interesting to watch vs just having them on the show and engaging in small talk.

[Human-Being]

I gave up on getting any news from newscasters on TV, they are to busy trying to out best the others on gossip and cheap headlines. Spending days on nonsense when the real story stares them in the face. It's a ratings game and we are all paying the price.

[Cil]

Arianna, thank you sooooooooooo much for addressing this
JOHN KING/DICK CHENEY IN SUCH A CLEAR AND CONCISE
WAY!

Believe me I was really interested in watching this interview,
but it just about CURDLED MY BRAINS.........I THINK I WILL
HAVE TO CHALK THIS ONE UP TO .........SIMPLY DISGUSTING
AND INCOMPETENT!

I am at a loss at the absolute inept way that JOHN KING
conducted this interview.......it disgusted me so much that I
just had to CHANGE CHANNELS, maybe that is why I missed
the JOHN KING "F" WORD......­..........­I never thought that I would
hear of JOHN KING SWEARING IN SUCH A VULGAR WAY ON
CNN......then again I have not got a clue as to the goings on
with the CNN JOURNALIST­S/REPORTER­S in the media
world today.

Again Arianna thank you so much, you said it better than I
possibly could!

[kkuchenb]

Well, all you have to do is vote with your remote. I stopped watching CNN years ago. I watch MSNBC for commentary. For news I watch BBC World News America. Matt Frei does what American journalists won't do.

[Ladywolf55]

Absolutely correct. I do the same. I turned of CNN when they canned Aaron Brown. I also never watch Faux News. Rachel Maddow and KO's shows are excellent.

[citizen625]

Jon Stewart appears to have standards for himself imposed by his own choices. To many to the 'Darlings' have an outside generated set of standards along the lines of $/yr., ratings, big name interviews, hits per day, etc.
Face it folks, we're having a crisis of shallowness. To get accountability we need to demand it. If we don't receive it vote with your feet or alter what businesses you support. And just because someone wraps themselves in the flag of "Democratic" doesn't mean they should be free from scrutiny.
Don't be surprised if at some point Stewart quits his show if he feels it doesn't meet his standards. That's creative destruction. John King will be fired because his standards are exogenous.

[anelder]

I agree with you Arianna - but isn't getting the 'big get' the whole idea of the show. I don't see the guys at the top allowing King to get to where he can't get the 'big gets' on the show.

Now chat I would like to see is a follow up program, not with King, on knocking down all the crap that was facually wrong. Just the facts mam no more opinions. Follow up with Arianna and those facts about Fannie and Freddy would have been glorious. It's not as if coming out with all the nonsense on Olbermann of Maddow will do the trick. I can't see their audience drawing the crowd that needs to see the revision and distortion of facts. What we need is a prime time fact check on all the weeks crap. I think if it covered all the stuff - both sides - it might get an audience of those other than the right week lemmings.

[Snuffleupagus]

What if anyone investigated Dick instead?

Time for action, time for prosecution. Otherwise Obama will be relegated to the same political scrap heap of shame now occupied by Pelosi the horrible. How can people stand by and support these Democrats who are covering up some of the worst war crimes in US history?

[nycoach]

Anytime I see a democrat interviewed by ANYONE on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS etc, it's a love fest. I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Has anyone seen any "tough" interviews with Obama? Please....Cheney and Bush are GONE! Thankfully, but now we need to focus on a white house that seems to be winging it at every turn!

[bugsbonzai]

This is nonsense. Point me to the "tough" interviews with Bush from 2001-2008. Go ahead. Publish the links. And I mean plural because if these media outlets were in the tank for Democrats, there will be example after example after example from all the major networks of the deep, deep grilling conservative leaders got from these outlets. I'm especially interested in the interviews from 2003-2005. I'd love to see those "tough" interviews with Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. Please enlighten us. Oh wait, you're full of it.

[gschear]

Spot on.

[gschear]

Winging it at every turn? I don't believe I have heard of a red binder emergency procedure for dealing with the aftermath of 8 years of a rocket powered monkey navigated joke of an Administration. As far as I am concerned any time a Republican is interviewed by anyone the interviewer should grab them by the ear and shout at them until they cry and wet themselves. That goes for any so called conservedems intent on obstructing the Presidents agenda. We have been wandering in circles in a dense swamp with the muck well over the tops of our boots these past eight years. I for one don't wish to waste anytime listening to those who led us here. I'll stick with the new guy and he gets more than 50 days to sort it out.

[anelder]

Just who should we supporting at this juncture? The old regime? And what would you call that interviw with Cheney if not a love fest? I'll bet your one of those jumpers of the blooklyn bridge, you know the ones who follow the leader no matter what crimes get commited.

[Opygollopy]

A Love Fest - what do you call the interview with Cheney. That must have been the Lovefest of all time. Cheney lied blatantly, exaggerated when he wasnt lying and King didnt follow up on anything even when Tricky Dicky didnt answer the questions he was asked.

When they interview Dems, they are all over them like a bloody blanket. When Repubs are on, they go on and on and on with talking points and NEVER answer what they are asked. Try staying away from Fox News for a week. DUH.

[Ken Freedom]

The mainstream establishment media listens to liberals say "The sky appears to be blue." and conservatives say "Clearly the sky is bright yellow, and idiot can see that!" and declares that the sky must in fact be green.