NPR correspondent Steve Inskeep “pounced on the seeming inconsistency” of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s criticism of government-run anything, according to an NPR report on the interview. Inskeep “tangled,” with Steele in a “boisterous” interview.
The interview was all of this and more. Normally I would criticize NPR and other members of the mainstream media for attacking Republicans like this but giving easy questions to Democrats. This health care debate, and in particular this interview, caused me to see things differently.
This was an excellent interview. I applauded and cheered as Inskeep took Steele apart. Inskeep demonstrated to listeners that Steele is not qualified for a major political role in this nation, and he reinforced my earlier charges that Republicans are failing the nation in this debate. I wrote: “The Republicans are either unable or unwilling to put together a cohesive, sensible plan and communicate that plan to Americans.”
Now I have a question. Has Inskeep, or any other journalist really challenged Democratic leaders in this same fashion that Inskeep challenged Steele? I don’t ask this as a criticism. I haven’t heard any of the top politicians pressed to answer The question they are being asked the way Inskeep did with Steele. Inskeep showed he was a pro.
First I doubt Pelosi, Reid, or Obama would submit themselves to this type of challenge. They have handlers to prevent the sort of interview Steele went through (the same is true for Republican leaders of the House and Senate, though clearly not the RNC Chair) and even if a real journalist did get an opportunity, the best of journalists have difficulty getting real answers from top politicians. Skillful evasion is, unfortunately, a vital political skill.
There is another challenge here that goes to the core of real journalism. Journalists are supposed to be non-partisan. That they rarely succeed is in part because ratings, the almighty dollar, drive their behavior. The other reason is that journalists are human and therefore subject to human bias.
I have no doubt that reporter Inskeep saw no redeeming value to the comments of politician Steele. I have no doubt the Inskeep’s feelings toward Steele and his comments are what made this interview so powerfully revealing. That Inskeep has a bias caused him to put his heart into this interview. He got results.
So that leads me to a challenge.
I challenge Democratic and Republican leaders, those in favor and those opposed to health care reforms, to submit to hostile interviews with journalists that oppose their view on health care. The only rule is that the interview must be broadcast in its entirety to avoid any hint of creative editing.
The journalist conducting the interviews with Democrats should be George Will. He is a conservative that commands respect from liberals, at least those willing to entertain challenges to their views. If not George Will than maybe someone from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, such as Peggy Noonan or James Taranto.
Inskeep should get the first shot at Republicans since he did such a great job on the Steele Interview. If not Inskeep, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman would do an excellent job, as would Frank Rich.
The first principle of this blog is that a well informed electorate strengthens the Constitution. Right now Democrats and Republicans are charging each other with lying and misinformation over health care. Here is a plan to bring out the truth.
Do our political leaders have the courage to take up this challenge?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent Idea! I have been wondering whatever happened to unbiased journalism, an important concept in my junior high journalism class. But I have to admit, that bias would be useful in interviews such as these because they do help ferret out the real story.
I heard the interview today twice and the thing that struck me most is that apparently nuanced arguments are considered a bad thing, at least to the Republicans, but I suspect to both parties. If the press would begin to call talking heads on their sound bites and lack of nuance, we’d go a long way toward having an educated electorate. NPR does this job better than most.
What bothered me about the interview was the fact that the “inconsistency” that Inskeep accused Steele of was not all that strong.
Inskeep’s premise that to be since Steele was against some cuts to Medicare for people over 65 (A for +65), and because Medicare is government run healthcare (B), then he shouldn’t be against government run healthcare for everyone (A for everyone).
So if we say (A+65) should not be cut and (A +65)=(B), therefore we should implement (A for everyone)?
Sorry, logic doesn’t work that way. Yet, that was the point argued about for most of the interview.
Steele actually put it best when he said:
“Just because, you know, I want to protect something that’s already in place and make it run better and run efficiently for the senior citizens that are in that system does not mean that I want to automatically support, you know, nationalizing or creating a similar system for everybody else in the country who currently isn’t on Medicare. ”
To which Inskeep replied… “Let me ask another question…”
Frank: the takeaway point I got from that line of questioning is that now the Republican party is championing Medicare as it suits them in undermining public healthcare, but they were talking about letting it wither on the vine a few years back. It would be great if they were sincere in their committment, but I doubt it–just as I doubt they’re interested in overseeing the health insurance industry.