Sunday Watch 9-28-08: In Which George Stephanopoulos Shies Away From Moments of Truth

Originally published on CJR.org, the Web site of the Columbia Journalism Review.

In a democratic society, what is the point of questioning a candidate or any other powerful figure? When the network gets its “get,” what does the public get?

The purpose isn’t self-evident. The host of a Sunday morning show in particular& -- America’s bulliest pulpit -- can’t justify him- or herself by serving as a “stenographer with amnesia,” as the late Jack Newfield said once, and memorably, about the general run of Washington reporting. The network higher-ups certainly crave a bump in eyeballs and eardrums, but that’s a private interest and cannot be the whole of the public’s due, either. The candidate may enjoy his or her minutes in the national spotlight, but the exercise is not intended for their pleasure.

To perform a public service, an interview ought to (in journalists’ jargon) “advance the story” -- to move the candidate out of the zone of the known into the less known. It ought to display the candidate’s mode of thought, his or her tone and style especially frustrated -- for politics is, among other things, a Mick Jagger world when you don’t always get what you want, and the public has the right to see how the candidate acts in that circumstance. The cause of public knowledge is not served if the questions crash into a familiar wall; if they elicit no more than the usual string of talking points; if they repeat what others have asked already in visible venues; if the answers only replicate the boilerplate in the stump speech or on the website.

Most of all, the public is not served when mistakes, distortions, and lies go uncorrected.

Politicians are more or less artful dodgers. To be useful, interviewers have to slip beneath their defenses. If they hear an evasion, they need to ask the question again. Fair’s fair: This gives the interviewee a chance to wriggle off the hook. And if not, it makes plain that they fail, or refuse, to talk straight. The cheap substitute for such explorations is the Gotcha moment. The more difficult way is to ask the question a different way, to root around, to explore motives and causes.

George Stephanopoulos’s best moment with John McCain this week came when the host asked McCain about what was, to me and several others (for example, James Fallows), the most peculiar and conspicuous physical fact of the debate.

Here’s how the moment went on ABC:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, during the debate, it seemed that you were reluctant to look at Senator Obama.

MCCAIN: I wasn't.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No?

MCCAIN: Of course not.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we went back through the tape, and some people were saying that that was showing disdain for him. Is that fair?

MCCAIN: I was looking at the moderator a great deal of time. I was writing a lot of the time. I in no way know how that in any way would be disdainful.

Friday night, it was not hard to see many moments when McCain was refusing to look at Obama but was not looking at the moderator or writing. Many. He was staring at the audience or at the camera. When Obama approached at debate’s end, McCain glanced at him for a fraction of a second, then looked away. Did Stephanopoulos miss these moments? If he saw, why didn’t he challenge McCain? Instead, the interview veered away from verifiable fact and went to this odd locution about his intention:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Certainly not what you intended?

A strangely helpful way to put the question, starting with “Certainly” -- putting exculpatory words in McCain’s mouth. Why didn’t Stephanopoulos challenge McCain about where he was looking when he wasn’t looking at Obama?

McCain contradicted himself a moment later: “I don't look at my opponents because I'm focusing on the people and the American people that I'm talking to.” So he was retracting his previous claim that he had been busy with the moderator and note-taking. Or, to be more generous, he was supplementing it. Perhaps he really didn’t know where he was looking. In any event, we lost an opportunity to hear McCain explain himself.

Here are some other roads left untaken during this interview:

• As during the debate itself, McCain made much of his antagonism to earmarks. Since the president’s only choice with earmarked bills is to sign them or veto them, was he pledging to veto every earmarked bill? More important, Obama made the case Friday night that earmarks amount to $18 billion a year, less than two months of the Iraq war, and a puny amount compared to the total budget, let alone the $700 billion figure tossed around as the cost of this week’s bailout. What does McCain make of that?

• “You made an extraordinary decision this week to suspend the campaign,” Stephanopoulos said. Many commentators have pointed out that, while he was supposedly suspending his campaign, his offices remained open, he fund-raised, and his ads ran. This is not opinion, this is fact. The proper way to broach the subject would have been: “You made a decision to say that you were suspending your campaign. But you did X, Y, and Z. What about that?”

• Stephanopoulos asked a good question about the Congressional bailout deliberations for which McCain “suspended” his campaign: “So what role did you play? How were you helpful, do you believe, in the process?” McCain: “I will let you and others…be the judge of that.” A repeat of the question suggests itself, since McCain blew it off the first time. But there was no second time.

• Stephanopoulos was pointed when he said: “[Y]our own economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told The New York Times, said the campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up, but for some, Mr. McCain's health care tax credits would not be large enough to compensate for his proposal to eliminate the tax breaks.” McCain responded: “Actually, my position is that it will be able to give people actually more money to go out and purchase tax -- health -- health insurance on their own.” But the next position ought to have been: On what basis? Your chief economic adviser says otherwise. Why do you hold your position?

• Finally, Stephanopoulos managed a valuable observation about McCain campaign proximity to the accursed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “[Y]our own campaign chairman has taken millions of dollars from Fannie and Freddie Mae and their supporters. Your own legislative liaison, the man directing your transition, your senior adviser,…all of them have taken money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for several years, right up until last month.” McCain led with his standard what-do-I-care-what-the-peons-say response: “Anybody can make whatever charge they want….The facts are that none of my campaign people are lobbying or receiving a dime for lobbying and have not for a long period of time…they haven't for actually, I think, for two years, the latest one. Some of them have never been.”

This was a start, but only a start. “The latest one” -- the latest campaign official to take Fannie Mae money -- is his campaign manager, Rick Davis. But Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Holly Bailey report this week that “Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was recently placed under federal conservatorship, paid [Davis’s] firm $15,000 a month between 2006 and August 2008….the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006 -- and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business.” As David Kirkpatrick wrote in the NYT Sept. 23, “The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.”

It gets worse. Not only was Davis drawing money from McCain via his Davis Manafort company, but, according to Isikoff and Bailey, “another entity created and partly owned by Davis -- an Internet firm called 3eDC, whose address was the same office building as Davis Manafort's -- received payments from the McCain campaign for Web services, collecting $971,860 through March 2008.”

When McCain reverted to his claim that he’s as maverick as all get-out, Stephanopoulos stood by and watched.

Finally, Stephanopoulos did have one more good moment. He showed a video in which Sarah Palin “seemed to share Senator Obama's position” on “talking out loud about perhaps going into Pakistan,” saying in Philadelphia last week: “If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should.” McCain answered: “She shares my view that we will do whatever is necessary. The problem is, you don't announce it.” A moment later, after a follow-up, McCain was adding in extenuation: “She was in a conversation with some young man that - or whoever it was.” The problem McCain doesn’t recognize is that the American people have a right to know under what conditions their president thinks it right to commit acts of war on the other side of a foreign border. This very question is the gravamen, after all, of the Bush doctrine that Palin seemed never to have heard of in her interview with Charles Gibson.

By definition, it’s hard to confront people who make careers of evasiveness. But it can be done. Katie Couric showed the way when she refused to take flight in the face of Sarah Palin’s meanderings last week. Some journalists have gotten off the McCain bandwagon, realizing that Mr. Straight Talk, profane, gossipy, blunt, was taking them for one ride after another. Stephanopoulos himself has been tougher on him before. I can’t think of any good reason why he let up now.

P. S. The competition was no better. On Meet the Press, McCain operative Steve Schmidt declared that his candidate “called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld.” Tom Brokaw did not challenge this statement. Crooks and Liars gives several examples of McCain explicitly opposing Rumsfeld’s defenestration.

The same site also notes that Brokaw said: “[W]e continue to poll on who is best equipped to be Commander in Chief, John McCain continues to lead in that category, despite the criticism from Barack Obama, by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC/WSJ poll.” But the NBC/WSJ poll didn’t ask about being the commander in chief, claims Crooks and Liars. I checked; they’re right. What’s going on over at NBC?

Comments

[krocklin]

McCain is lucky the media is being distracted by Palin. His schtick is wearing thin and he's getting more petulant all the time. In response to every question he lapses back into "implausible deniabilty".

If he goes into attack mode again - either in ads and/or through Palin - there will be a further backlash.

[Shaddup]

George Step-on-th­e-populous

[bronceye]

I stopped watching george after his Hillary showcase. He sat while she stood(to hide her tummy roll) and just allowed her to make blind assertions. As far as the eye contact of macane, he shook hands at the beginning of the debate by turning his head away from Obama. I have arthritis and can't look up very well. Macane is 12 yrs. older than I and only 5'6". Maybe he can't look up to a 6'3" man.

[hardesty]

Stephaboopalous and Brokaw are not the only journalist­s/moderato­rs/comment­ators who show bias. What I can't stand is when they don't follow up an outright lie!

[eden4barack08]

Brokaw is odious. He thinks it's his responsibility to distance NBC from MSNBC, who's accused of Obama love fest simply because ONE commentator (Olbermann), is pro-Obama.
Brokaw's bias for McSame is really showing up in the ugliest of ways. He's even incapable of doing it diplomatically, and so comes out really hateful and sinister. His disdain for anything Obama is just way too obvious. He needs to go!

[demfriend]

When did George S. bail out on real truth and honest journalism? Some time ago. If you watch him as I used to before I sickened of his wuss walk around those who lie, he panders and smiles and laughes but when he needs to go after someone for lying and manipulation of the country he backs off every time. The love and all for Tim Russert and his ability to go for it when he knew he had to, by all of those talking heads who either have never done that themselves or have been afraid to force the issues for reasons of their own. We shuld have reporters and journalists who are willing and able to ask the hard questions and to go after the truth for us, the viewer and the voter. When did we stop deserving those who felt the ink in the veins to the point they didn't stop at the top of the story but went after the meat and the desserts while drinking the wine and making nice with the one being interviewed. This once staple person we could depend on to bring us what we need and cannot get on our own, as our representative is harder to find. I like Keith Olberman with the take no prisoner and get the truth as I do Jon Stewert who does the same while laughing.

[ElBruce]

I think NBC's caving under the RNC's "liberal media" attack (you'd think they'd know better by now) and temporarily making themselves Republican mouthpieces to curry favor.

[sueno]

Stephanopoulos is terrible!
He's not a reporter, but an govt. insider and wonk.
His opinions are biased and generally off the mark.
He treats his "friends" well and grills their enemies,
this was proven during past debates.
They need to put a "real" journalist in his seat
and let Stephanopoulos write books about the Clintons-

[keepacoolhead]

I actually got so annoyed at the lame line of questioning of Stephanopoulos and Brokaw that I screamed at the TV and after a while did the only sensible thing - Shut that damn thing off. I rather read than waste my time with these softboiled eggheads.

[MmeFlutterbye]

George Stephanopoulis is really a disappointment. he wants to be popular with everyone. But I think he was intimidated by McCain---you know---in case he wins the election, George wants to be on his good side. As for Brokaw...he's only interested in himself. I've never felt otherwise. I think he should quit public appearances before he ruins his reputation for "ïntegrity." Or maybe both of these babbling heads are simply following directions of their bosses who, in all likelyhood, are Republicans. Either way neither commands respect.

[rock2casbah]

If he is trying to curry favor with McCain out of fear he may win, he has his eggs in the wrong basket. Even ABC/Post knows they better be curriyng favor with the Democratic and Independents side of this election. Obama is getting in landslide territory with this election.

It is obvious to anyone worthy of calling themselves a political insider what is happening. So the question still remains why doesn't the MSM grow a pair. They never have and never wil it looks like.

[Plus15]

Re: Your final question onTom Brokaw "What’s going on over at NBC?"

The question should be what's with Tom Brokaw? I remain amazed that I’ve heard no comment what-so-ever about Brokaw's immediate comment following Bill Clinton's speech at last month's Democratic Convention. The moderator Olbermann or Matthews introduced Brokaw for comment on the speech and with no prior verbiage he said (I was not able to see a replay so this is close) "He (Clinton) was going around to Draft Boards trying to get a deferment while John McCain was a POW in a North Vietnamese prison camp".

I guess Bill can overlook that insult along with McCain's Chelsea / Janet Reno slur.

This is not the Tom Brokaw we all knew and respected for so many years as the gold standard. This is an out of control partisan shoveling a pot shot at our highly respected (until his current meltdown) former President of the United States. Nothing subtle about Brokaw’s crack, in the process he insulted all Americans.

NBC needs to look outside for a politically independent host for Meet the Press. Yes that means no Gregory, Shuster, Mitchell, Curry, Tucker Carlson or anybody else you regularly showcase as an NBC newscaster. Jack Welch screwed them all into a right wing partisan position to protect GE's defense contracts and federal broadcasting licenses.

Zucker, Griffin, Capus how about an explanation? Immelt? Pentagon? Military Industrial Complex? Tom you're shaming yourself and your "legacy".

[Dandrea]

Plus15, I especially agree that NBC needs to get a politically independent host for MTP. Russert barely met the requirements. MTP was #1 because we could count on him to give most guests a run for the money. This is what made MTP the show of record.
I'd give the same advice to MSNBC. They need real newsmen to provide the voice of reason to anchor the special events like the Debates and then let the usually cast of characters provide " the color".
Fox is smart enough not to put Hannity at the debate desk.

[Mattjoe]

At point do any of us get a set of balls and mention the Illuminati?

[Maanu]

With few exceptions, they all have the kid gloves on just to get access to the ring. In a private media system, access comes at a price, namely integrity.

[buffalo66]

well said

[ReaderTeacherCitizen]

We saw Stephanopoulos in the ABC primary debate between Obama and Clinton, where he co-anchored the worst debate in TV history. If he was educated as a journalist, it didn't take. He just plays one on television.

[longislandlol]

Corporate has toned him down--- they tried to do it with matthews and olbermann over at MSNBC- but people have long memories- stephanopoulos was a senior advisor to the Clinton's--- the Clinton's have rich fat cat repub friends---