Florida WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West thought that she was using her five minutes with Sen. Joe Biden to get at the toughest questions being raised by critics of the campaign. None of the usual softball, scripted questions in the video below. The choice reportedly resulted in the campaign canceling future interviews with the station. Blacklisting is a Nixonian trick and not something that most modern campaigns openly embrace.
West raised Sen. Obama’s comment about spreading wealth. That fact is that the comment is part of a variety of statements from democratic leaders connected to the campaign, including Biden, indicating that the Democrats intended to use their prior pattern of tax increases as a core agenda item. Indeed, a recent video show Obama using the expression in a 2001 radio interview on a failure of the Supreme Court. West asked why spreading the wealth does not make you a Marxist. Right subject, wrong delivery.
Biden was right to respond “Are you joking? No.” It hardly makes you Marxist to want higher taxes, though it does raise a legitimate issue as to the philosophy of the campaign in a still fiscally conservative country.
West then asked about Biden’s latest gaffe about Obama being tested by the foreign countries — a comment that played directly into the untested claims of the McCain camp. West again took the question a step too far and asked if Biden was saying America’s days as the world’s leading power were over. Once again, it was not the best framing of a valid question. Biden responded by stating “I don’t know who’s writing your questions.”
For the video of the interview, click here.
Instead of shrugging off the questions as awkward, the campaign went out of its way to cut off the entire statin and make it clear that it was being punished. It canceled an interview with Jill Biden, stating in a letter from Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign:”This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election.” So not to leave anything to speculation, McGinnis wrote that the cancellation was “a result of her husband’s experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West.”
Even if you were ticked, how dimwitted is it to send a letter telling every journalist that the campaign is now punishing anyone who asks irritating or unpredictable questions? This should be treated as a serious problem by the campaign and the decision reversed. It is hard to claim to promise a new open and transparent government when you are blacklisting media.
For the full story, click here.
Jill,
No problem.
rafflaw,
We’re not going to agree on this one. I want to say that I do know you have spoken out strongly on FISA and you did say the blacklisting is wrong. It’s other statements I disagree with you on. Even so please don’t think I ever question your good intent.
Raff,
I agree that relevance of a question is a material concern. Creating false impressions is at the heart of propaganda and irrelevant and/or inflammatory questions are a tool in that toolbox. I do think there are ways to handle this type of tactic. I say since you can object for relevance in court, it’s fair game in an interview. Just say, “That’s not relevant. Do you have another question?” and move on. If they continue, briefly (and only briefly, to go on extemporaneously might put you on the defensive) explain once why it is irrelevant and again ask do they have other questions. By explaining your objection succinctly and being open to more questions you remove the appearance of stonewalling. If they persist, end the interview politely – possibly with an offer to return when the “reporter” has legitimate questions. Your opponent is disarmed. They are left with no place to run but opinion, speculation and/or smear, all of which can be countered in other ways and often self-destruct in the information age. Look at how successful McRage and Ms. Nasty Alaska have been in linking Ayers and Obama. Only the most propaganda susceptible among us believe an eight year old boy was helping Ayers in the old days. Since Ayers has been a model citizen since his bomb making days as well, it was easily exposed as a raw tactical lie and irrelevant to boot. The men had brief but legitimate business contact. I like it when things like that blow up in the liar’s face. The GOP look petty and desperate for their efforts.
The danger of this tactic for the politician is that he/she had damn well better be certain that it’s neither relevant nor related to something of legitimate concern that could come back to bite them. If your flanks are covered though, I think it’s a solid tactic.
Jill,
I disagree that I have Ok’d any bad action by the Obama campaign. I stated more than once in my earlier postings that I would not blacklist and that the Obama campaign should back track from it. I was also part of his own blogroup that took him to task about his change in the FISA amendment stance. I agree with you that the claims of Socialism should be addressed. However, the reason the terms Socialism and Marxism have been used is because once those particular words are used, many do not hear what comes afterwards. They are so incendiary that they become the “crying fire in a crowded theatre” type of claim. How do you unring the bell after those loaded terms are used? This woman was not abused by an over controlling Obama campaign. Maybe I am the only one who sees this, but she was instructed to ask that question in that manner for a political purpose. This was not a press that is showing its needed independence. It is a member of the press showing us that she is in the pocket of corporate interests, much like we have seen in the past from the the Bush Administration. Not because of her question alone, but because of how she asked it and what terms that she used.
rafflaw,
I am not concerned with how the McCain campaign runs as a way to excuse what Obama does. It’s like torture–it’s not about them, it’s about us. Obama has not just sporadically tried to control the press, he has done so consistently and from the beginning. It would be wrong for McCain to do this and many have rightly critized him for doing this with Palin. It is equally wrong for Obama to do so.
The socialism claim has been made and needs to be addressed forcefully. It is particularly ironic that it occurs at the same time cheneybush have socialized the losses and left the gains in private hands of the finacial industry. Obama and Biden should show some courage and take this issue on squarely.
rafflaw, I get so worried when you and other Obama supporters say it’s O.K. for Obama to act badly. I feel this is sending him the strongest message that he can take as much power as he likes and get away with it. Flower child and FFLEO are correct in pointing to the disastrous consequences of a compliant press and a secretive candidate/president.
Former FedLEO,
I understand your dislike of blacklisting. However, I think your experience with the FOIA requests is blatant, improper censorship and not blacklisting. The results are the same, lack of information for the public who own that information.
I adamantly disagree with any manner of ‘blacklisting’. The interviewer was firm but fair, she did not scream or rant as a Mr. O’Reilly, or others might have done.
The First Amendment is too important for denigration by blacklisting, especially by government officials who are public servants.
I have spent 2 years attempting FOIA requests and state public records requests to expose governmental abuse, dishonesty, and unethical behavior. Redacted FOIA documents I receive, that are worthless because of the marks-a-lot blacking-out of information, are a form of ‘blacklisting’ my requests for facts and transparency in government.
The Bush Administration’s abuse of power should demonstrate why we must abhor all forms of blacklisting.
Prof. Turley, Buddha, Jill and everyone else,
I agree and stated in my first posting that I agree that I would not have reacted the way the Obama campaign acted in response to this paid hit. The questions asked by West were not just poorly framed questions about a legitimate concern. The idea of Obama being a Socialist is not a legitimate concern except within the Fox News wing of the McCain campaign. It is one of their mantras that they have attempted to foist upon people who will not actually investigate an issue or a claim. Ptof. Turley wrote that the alleged “pro-tax” views of Obama are becoming a legitimate concern of voters. The only reason this claim has any traction is because of biased “journalists” who aren’t asking both sides these ridiculous questions. The Republicans have been very adept at pushing these incorrect and false labels on Democratic candidates for years now and some here are accepting more of it under the guise that we want to be fair to the other side. Obama has been the “fairest of all”(where have I heard that phrase before?)when it comes to staying above the fray of gutter politics. However, at some point, you have to take a stand. Palin and McCain have been refusing interviews for weeks. Letterman and Larry King come to mind. I will repeat that I do not agree that they should blacklist any reporters. I would also agree that they should do the agreed upon interview. However, this was not just a good and proper question that was constructed improperly. This wasn’t a “woops” moment, it was a “I am gonna get you because McCain needs help” moment. And to use the “Marxist” word in the question was not merely an error by a journalist who knows the difference between Marxism and socialism, but an intentional attmept to create another false and incendiary label on a candidate. When the Obama campaign responds to this, they do have to back away from formally blacklisting any station, but they do have to state clearly that this woman was not “just doing her job” as some portray it. She was doing “a job” on Biden on the behest of the McCain campaign. One more thing on the tax issue. The tax policy of Obama’s is merely bringing the tax rates approximately back to the Clinton era level. Clinton was called alot of names back then, but Marxist wasn’t one of them. I don’t disagree with Prof. Turley and others here that blacklisting shouldn’t be allowed, but these questions were not legitimate questions on legitimate issues. At some point in a campaign against an opponent who will stop at nothing, you have to draw a line in the sand and take on anyone who would spread lies to get ahead. Especially from a so-called journalist.
Jill,
I agree that Obama has attempted to control the media at times, but as a candidate you have to do that. Controlling them and picking your times to talk with them is not a bad thing. Letting them run roughshod over the truth is a bad thing. This entire episode smacks of Karl Rove and not Karl Marx.
Let me preface this by saying I’m voting for Obama, if only because the McCain/Palin ticket scares the bejesus out of me. That said, it strikes me that Obama is entirely comfortable with the powers & prerogatives of the Imperial Presidency.
It surpasses my understanding how a scholar of Constitutional law could have voted for the FISA bill. I know that it may have been politically expedient to do so, but if there was ever a time to reject expediency in favor of principle, that was it.
Obama’s manipulation of the press is right out of the Atwater/Rove play book, albeit kinder & gentler. And why not: you don’t have to play hardball when you’re a media darling. In any case, the press is out of its depth covering anything other than celebrity meltdowns & lurid crimes –often in the same story.
I can see the element of bad faith in the questions addressed to Biden, but Biden should be perfectly capable of both answering the questions & deflecting the attempt by the interviewer to score cheap points.
The reaction by the Obama campaign signals that they are only willing to engage with a lapdog Fourth Estate. In other words, the media should treat them with deference. Obama & Biden are not royalty –which gets back to my remarks about the Imperial Presidency. We do not owe deference to our political leaders when it comes to examining their policies or public pronouncements.
Raff,
I have to agree with JT on this one. Blacklisting the station isn’t the answer. However, I understand the temptation to do so. Buddha teaches us that difficult people are a blessing because they give us a chance to practice patience. It is also a perfectly human response to want to strike back when you’ve been ambushed – either in a conversation or elsewhere. Was the formulation of the question top shelf? No. They were garbage. The were an irritant and possibly (probably) designed to be that way. Some reporters question this way because they cannot make a distinction between reporting the news and making the news. To her, getting Biden to get mad or make a mistake because it would be good for her career is more important than doing her job properly. She is a bad reporter, not as in bad actor, but as in poorly skilled. It is also human nature to avoid irritants when you cannot eliminate them. To properly handle the situation, Biden could have out argued her premises in such a way as to embarrass the woman. That would have also required more time than he was probably allowed and runs the risk of making him look aggressive, petty, etc. if not executed just so. So the A List solution was out from the onset. That leaves them with B and C. B would be to let sleeping dogs lie – probably the optimal solution. She didn’t succeed in making news like she had intended but blacklisting the station only draws attention to her. Had they let it drop, no one would be talking about it now. So the Obama camp went with a draconian C. Blacklist the station. Total avoidance of future irritation. Also a understandable human reaction. However, it also creates an issue of access. Politicians need to appear open to questions even if they aren’t and ideally they should be willing to take all comers since they want to have such an important job. Blacklisting conveys the opposite. It is also a tactic of Bush Co. – press access control. We’ve had enough of that I think you’ll all agree. But that leave the question of appropriate response. How to seem open and yet avoid any future issues. Given this scenario, I understand why they went with C, however, their version of C smells more like hatchet than scalpel. If you don’t want to deal with HER IN SPECIFIC in the future, I have no issue with that – a “micro-blacklisting”. I’m betting Bob Woodward will get to talk to Bush again on about the 3rd of Never. I know I’d give an interview to CNN unless the questioner was going to be Glenn Beck – I don’t traffic with fascist propagandists. Hell, people do this all the time in daily life. Ever go to a longer line at the grocery store to avoid a checker that just pisses you off? Go around some half-wit at work who makes your head ache to deal with? I’m thinking most of you have. But blacklisting the station smells like Revenge ala Nixon served with a side of “I don’t have to answer your stinking questions”. I for one have had way too much of that kind of arrogance during the last eight years, but with the options available in this scenario, I think I understand how this happened. The Obama campaign overreacted. But in the scope of the totality of issues, it’s a small and understandably human screwup and one that can be fixed.
JT,
If you think the tax question was a valid one, albeit poorly worded, then let me phrase one very poorly for John McCain, and let’s see if his campaign cancels all interviews with this future hypothetical station….
“John McCain, you have voted 90% of the time with George Bush, that is of course the 34% of the time you show up to vote. Bush’s tax policies have straddled $5 Trillion more dollars onto the National Debt, or $16,667 owed by each and every man, woman and child in the United States. Why are you willing to continue Bush’s tax policies and continue to kick the can down the street, forcing your grandchildren to pay for your extravagant spending, free giveaways to offshore corporations and unending war in Iraq?”
Oh right, no one in the journalistic profession with any integrity whatsoever is willing to ask that question, yet nut bag hypocritical “fiscal conservative” people on the right can claim the sky is falling with socialism looming around the corner, will ask anything with no validity whatsoever and then cry when they are rightly “blacklisted”.
This blacklist is not the first successful attempt by the Obama campaign to control the media. It is the first openly admitted to. Mr. Obama has always kept reporters on a short leash. In the primaries he gave 7 minutes to a group of reporters at a campaign stop with a minder there to tell them, “time’s up”. The press has been awfully compliant with our politicians to disastrous effect. Obama’s actions with the press are all of a piece with his presidential power votes on FISA and the bailout. The left wing has let many bad actions by Obama go unaccounted and I believe that is a hugh mistake.
Yes, this blacklist should be withdrawn immediately. Obama and Biden are intelligent people and they can answer these questions. They should take them on and make the questioner state things like, “Do you really think I’m a Marxist? Then let me explain about Marxism.”
Our press didn’t ask questions of bush and friends. Interestingly when don rumsfield was questioned by the british press he suddenly became able to answer actual difficult and nuanced questions.
I read that quote by Biden and I don’t know what the hell he meant by it. I’m certain he’s capable of explaining what he meant. I’m also certain Obama can explain what he meant by spreading the wealth around. For one thing, wealthy “support the troops” Republicans should actually quite whinning and “support our troops” by funding their medical/education/get their life back together programs. It is shameful that wealthy people will not put their money into these types of programs while screaming loudly that we need the war to “keep us safe”.
I very much worry that the left is letting Obama get away with an awful lot. If we don’t stand up for our rights, no matter if it’s “our guy” violating them or the other guy then we will lose them.
‘More importantly, the campaign should retract the letter from McGinnis as not the policy of the campaign.’
——
Holy cow. I agree JT. This woman went beyond her authority, I’m sure. The tension in Florida must really be palpable. They need to lighten up. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets canned.
Joe Biden can speak for himself – ‘gaffes’ and all and not have it be a disaster, unless they insist on following up with responses like this. And he is right, Obama would need our support if something happens early. I trust Americans to participate in supporting an administration that is the antitheses of the current one, on all sorts of issues this time around. At least that is my wish. Perhaps we’re starting now.
When I listen to McCain, I shake my head at how desperate and crotchety he’s become with clenched fists waving and his wild-eyed insistence that he has all the answers already and has been ‘tested’… No thanks!
Chris:
Politicians are asked such inappropriate or badly framed questions all the time. The issue here is not whether the question was well-crafted (it wasn’t, but I believe the tax question as a subject is a legitimate one). The issue is an official campaign blacklisting, a long scourge of American politics.
(quick followup — I hadn’t seen the earlier comment when I made the ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ analogy. The fact that two people immediately and independently drew this analogy shows just how inappropriate the framing was.)
I see your point, but I also keep coming back to the tactical issues facing campaigns once early voting has started in many states. A month ago there was time for the questions to be answered in subsequent interviews and stump speeches. Today, you can have a lot of votes cast before the voters hear your answer to “have you stopped beating your wife?” questions.
As for the content, I agree with the people who have pointed out that taxes ALWAYS redistribute wealth in some way. The only way to avoid that is a 100% pay-as-you-go model, and I think we all agree that charging a murder victim’s families hundreds of thousands of dollars for the investigation and prosecution of the murderer is unacceptable. Plus, what do you do when the convicted murderer can’t pay for his incarceration any longer? Set him free? Bill the murder victim’s family?
The only question is the policy driving the distribution of those taxes. Do you base it on a conscious public policy, no matter how flawed the implementation, or do you take a “squeaky wheel” approach? Do you try to make the tax proportionate to the benefit? E.g., the current bailout hits everyone via a general obligation. Why wasn’t a “0.1% tax on each transaction” financing model chosen instead?
I think there’s no doubt that we’ve had a “squeaky wheel” approach to taxation since Reagan, and especially under the current administration. I think it’s a legitimate question for people to ask if we need to balance taxation again, especially after huge gap between improvements in worker productivity and drop, in real value, of employee compensation while the top people have made unprecedented gains. You don’t have to be a Marxist to ask if that’s in the long term interests of this country. But a 5 minute interview where you’ve been called a Marxist is not the place for that discussion.
SHG:
I certainly do not want to defend the form of the questions. However, politicians find many question to be “loaded.” Bush hated unscripted questions. I though that Biden handled the question well in the interview. I simply do not understand the need or wisdom of embracing blacklisting of a station because a reporter was clueless in how she framed the question.
JT
The questions weren’t merely irritating, but loaded, along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife.” Such questions don’t seek to illuminate, but to embarrass. That’s not journalism. It’s not even bad journalism. That’s using the media pulpit as a blunt weapon, and it’s that use that’s being punished.
It was a truly offensive “interview”, though Biden handled it extraordinarily well.
Rafflaw:
I agree that the questions were poorly constructed, but they were in my view valid points of inquiry. The Obama campaign has made tax increases a looming concern for taxpayers due to Biden’s “taxes are patriotic” statement and Obama’s “spreading the wealth.” Polls show that middle class voters are showing increased concern over such pro-tax views. The concern is that, just as the Republicans refuse to think beyond their past themes, the democrats are returning to the tax policies that undermined them in the past with the middle class. Biden’s statement on being tested was remarkably ill-advised and an legitimate subject of questioning. (I happen to view the tested controversy as overblown and it should be easily dismissed in an answer from Biden).
My concern Rafflaw is the scourge of a blacklist. First, it is remarkably stupid to publicly announce a blacklist, even if you are going to do it. Second, I do not think that you should do it. West blew the question by throwing in Marxism. However, the question of “redistributing the wealth” does reflect a very extreme view of the purpose of government. Obama appears to have distanced himself from the statement, but it is worth such questioning. I disagree that there was not legitimacy to the subject of the questions. However, even though I do not believe that the “tested” controversy is a serious political question, it is a better of public concern.
A president and vice-president must uphold the constitution, including the freedom of press. It is not a violation to blacklist whole stations, but it certainly runs against the spirit of first amendment. I give great credit to Obama and Biden for going on Fox News. While one may agree with blacklisting in this case, it inevitably leads to Nixonian abuses. If you can blacklist a station over awkward or clueless questions, then you can blacklist over rising “irrelevant” subject matters in the view of a candidate. The campaign views these gaffes and mistakes as statements taken out of context and irrelevant. Many voters do not agree. It is particularly ironic to have someone questioned on a gaffe, then blacklist the reporter for a poorly crafted question.
I understand your points and I am not saying that the campaign should over-compensate by struggling to give future interviews with the reporter. However, an interview was scheduled and should be honored. More importantly, the campaign should retract the letter from McGinnis as not the policy of the campaign.
Prof. Turley,
I am a bit surprised that you think not wanting to go on a station that asks ridiculous questions that have no basis in fact is “blacklisting”. Why don’t many Democrats and progressives go on Fox News? Because they will not talk on the real issues or facts and will continue to push the latest “talking points” from the Republican party. This interview was a farce and this lady was just pushing the lies being promulgated by a McCain campaign that is desperate. Do you think that Obama’s tax policies are Socialistic? Would I have made it a formal policy to not go on the air? Probably not, but they would have been punished by the station talking heads even if they had refused future inerviews verbally or if they backed out of already scheduled interviews. For any candidate, of any party, to sit and listen to a lie promoted as the truth, is a mistake and gives credence to the lie that is being spread. No matter what your response to the question is or what the truth is. Do I think anyone in the Obama/Biden campaign should go on Fox News? No, for the same reasons that I stated above. If you repeat a ridiculous question or statement enough times, no matter how it is asked or answered, only legitimizes the question’s core premise. I do not consider a lie as being merely awkward.
As to the questions to Biden, these questions once again are an attempt to legitimize an improper theme or talking point of the McCain campaign. This business about being tested is the exact same thing that McCain’s BFF, Joe Liemberman stated on the air in June of this year. But, by framing the question in the manner that she did, it is an attempt to legitimize the false and misleading argument that Biden’s statements were false. I will get off my soapbox now, but while I do not have any problem with the Obama campaign refusing anymore interviews with this station and broadcaster, I would not have formalized the rejection, but the result for the Obama campaign would likely have been the same, in my opinion.