Milbank hits a foul on softball questions
Dana Milbank reviews a new book by Helen Thomas in today’s Washington Post. He’s less than impressed:
[In part, the book] is a rather unpleasant rehashing of the liberal criticism of the press’s performance before the Iraq war. Here, Thomas departs from personal anecdote and merely recites some of the millions of words that have been devoted to the cause in previous books, articles and blogs. It is an effort unworthy of a woman who, whatever her late husband was, truly is a journalistic icon.
Milbank then challenges Thomas’s observation that the press tossed softballs to President Bush at the 6 March 2003 news conference about Iraq and WMDs. To show how wrong she is, Milbank lists a few of the questions asked. Let’s review them.
“If all these nations…have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?”
This question misunderstands Bush’s view of himself, his own perceived place in history, his personality, and his vision of the United States. That other nations do not see what his administration sees is no challenge at all. Further, it asks for opinion instead of facts. It begins with an “if” conditional that allows for dismissing the conditions.
“I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies?”
This is a rhetorical question and, therefore, is more editorial comment than a real attempt at getting information. Again, it requires only an opinion from Bush.
“How would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it…your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place.”
So now he’s being asked for an opinion regarding another politician’s opinion. Who gives a rip? If it’s personal, do the reporting necessary to prove it and then ask a question that requires information (def.: statements about facts) to answer.
“What went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?”
Ask them. Then ask this same sort of question using specific information. This question asks for opinion rather than information. You see, the problem isn’t that the reporter has his or her information wrong. It’s that without specifics used to elicit specifics, all Bush has to do is stand firm on his talking points. He might stand firm on his talking points anyway, but the difference between a well-formed, well-asked question that demands information and a talking-points answer would be stark.
“There are a lot of people in this country…who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn’t attacked us.”
No kidding?
“Do you ever worry…that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?”
This is almost a good question. It gets at an important point. But it’s a rookie mistake: a yes-or-no question. It would be better to cite a specific and compelling expert or set of data to establish the premise. All Bush has to do is deny the premise.
“What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?”
Note to Milbank: This is a classic softball question. It begs: “Please, tell us another patriotic platitude.” The question’s premise assumes an historical correspondence of some sort between Vietnam and Iraq–a poor assumption.
So what adjective should we put to questions of this kind? Tough? Obsequious? How about: poor.
Now, I’m not privileging Thomas’s questions here. Milbank reproduces a few of her recent doosies. They are not so much questions as they are mini-editorials. Allow me to commit journalistic heresy: I think Thomas has morphed into a crank.
Okay, the lesson here is this: Editorializing questions that spring from opinion and ask for opinion may certainly be uncomfortable. But they are hardly tough, probing, or useful.
So what do I suggest? Click here read a PowerPoint presentation on critical reporting.
