 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 1, 2008 at 13:17:19
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 7/1/08: by Rob Kall Page 1 of 4 page(s) |
|
 
|
The Question I Didn't Ask Robert Wexler: Will Bush Use HR 362 to Use a Naval Blockade of Iran to Escalate Into Armed Conflict I can't tell you how many times I curse under my breath when a news anchor doing an interview drops the ball and lets the person being interviewed have a pass when he or she avoids answering a question or doesn't answer it directly or changes the subject or replies with an answer that demands another level of questioning. So I was extra frustrated that I was guilty of this on my own radio show. But we came up with a solution. I can't tell you how many times I curse under my breath when a news anchor doing an interview drops the ball and lets the person being interviewed have a pass when he or she avoids answering a question or doesn't answer it directly or changes the subject or replies with an answer that demands another level of questioning. I see this kind of softball, weak interviewing happen every day. This article talks about my personal experience BEING one of those broadcast interviewers and a solution I’ve come up with—one that I tried, that worked, and could set a precedent for how the mainstream media handle unfinished interviews and resolve unanswered questions. 
The other day, I was not surprised to find my chagrin waking me up at 5:30 AM as it sunk in on me that I'd been guilty of doing the same thing with my radio interview the night before with House Rep Robert Wexler (D-FL), who I am actually a big fan of. With the release of his new book, Fire-Breathing Liberal, I had a half hour interview booked about 30 minutes after he finished a few minute stint with Keith Olbermann.
A few hours before the interview, I got a call from Wexler's chief of staff, feeling out the climate for my interview. While my site, OpEdNews.com is an apparently friendly site for a liberal legislator, it has a lot of members who are further left than liberal. One site poll showed that 40% of our readers would support Nader McKinney or other. About 10% are conservatives who will probably support McCain. So I wasn't surprised when a writer wrote a hit piece on Wexler for endorsing House resolution 362, a bill which calls for putting tighter economic constraints on Iran, including the "demand" that President Bush prohibit the export to Iran refined petroleum products.
My Wexler-excoriating writer pointed out that this could justify a naval blockade that could escalate to war. Actually, a whole lot of people on the web are raising this concern.
One of our OpEdNews editors raised the same issue and a reader, responding to my invitation to suggest questions for my interviewee, again raised the same question, pointing out that former FBI analyst and NIE report writer Ray McGovern had also raised the concern.
So, when Wexler's chief of staff called me, about four hours before the show, to check out the "climate" Wexler would be encountering, I assured him it would be, overall, friendly, that I'd put a link in the article that tore Wexler a new one to David Swanson's article, In Defense of Robert Wexler, and that I was a fan of Wexler. But I also told him I did have another Wexler fan who wanted to ask him about the disturbing news that he'd signed on to a bill that others were saying could be used as a pretext to start a war with Iran-- a war set up and approved by congress.
Johnson assured me that Wexler was happy and ready to talk about the resolution. We had mutually reassured each other.
I'd set up the interview so my editor would be on the line, ready to ask away, when cued. After about 9 minutes talking about the book, about my having lived in his district, about the large percentage (about a third) of his constituents being Jewish, and how he dealt with Israel-- he pointed out that he'd been a spokesman for the Obama campaign, reaching out to Jewish communities, and how, under Obama, with direct talks with leaders, Israel would be at less risk, I asked my editor, Cheryl Biren-Wright, to ask her question about his endorsement of the bill that could lead to a naval embargo.
Wexler replied that there was no reference to a naval embargo written into the bill.
Cheryl asked him another question (She reviews this in great detail in her exceptional article. (If Increased Sanction Resolution 362 Could Give Bush License for a Naval Blockade, Why Support It?)
Moving the interview in a different direction than Cheryl wanted it to go, I commented on my belief that it would be easy, if a nation wanted to go nuclear, to do it without Iran's nuclearization, since N. Korea and Pakistan already have the technologies, and, what the heck, I'd reported the previous week that the US couldn't account for over 1000 nuclear weapon and delivery system parts. Even the US could be the provider of a nuclear weapon against Israel.
Before I knew it, we'd been talking about the bill and Israel and Iran for 13 minutes. There were only ten minutes left and the big subject I'd wanted to discuss with Wexler was impeachment. I had afterdowningstreet co-founder impeachment activist David Swanson waiting to get into the conversation and I wanted to ask Wexler how I could persuade my congressman, and my listeners could persuade theirs to endorse Kucinich's two impeachment resolutions and get things moving off the table.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
who is on the show this week
who? by Ben Kall (1 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:06:45 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: John Dean is my Main guest tomorrow night
on the first half hour. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:55:25 PM (0+)
|
|
TRAILBLAZING AGAIN!
You're so good at it, thanks! by Meryl Ann Butler (70 articles, 82 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 721 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:52:37 PM (0+)
|
|
If I may. . .
I think you gave the "hit piece" writer more credit than due. The piece was a rant challenging Wexler's sincerity calling his impeachment work a charade because he dared solicit contributions and is promoting a book. The issue of H. Con. Res. 362 was thrown in in one brief paragraph to somehow back up the rest of his argument. I'd like to point out to the readers that not only did Rob have the frustrations described in his article, but he had a fledgling editor (that would be me) nipping at his heels the whole time. Fortunately, his commitment to getting it right resulted in a valuable experience for me as a writer. If I recall properly, my 3:02 am email expressed more than frustration as I'm pretty sure I was demanding, albeit in a non-binding way, my sense that you should hand over Wexler's chief-of-staff's contact info. I was fired up and wanted something posted ASAP. Patience is, of course, a virtue (though not much fun) and slowing down took me from writing a reactionary piece to putting a little more thought into it. In the process, I dug up the remarks Rep. Andrews made at the forum I organized the week before. And, might I add in contrast to Wexler, my own congressman's office hasn't returned my calls about his charge that the admin. would "Gulf of Tonkinize" the situation. That led me to more research and then the privilege of corresponding with Rabbi Lerner. It took me from "blogging" where I would simply interpret and regurgitate what I had just heard or read to digging deeper. So, I once again thank you for that. Think I might have thrown out a few 4-letter words in our many conversations and then there was Mon. morning when for some inexplicable reason I told you over the phone if we were in the same room I'd throw something at you. So. . . yea. . . sorry 'bout that (insert emoticon of some sort). Thanks for your tolerance. The process was valuable and I love how you're already branding with "broadcast net follow-up" - so Rob Kall. One of the challenges we didn't consider prior to the interview was that we were not in the same room. No way to interpret body language. I could have signaled to you whether I could throw out one more question, etc. Maybe instant messaging next time. Finally, I too, as much as I hate to admit it understand a little more of the challenge interviewer's face. But, with what they're getting paid I will continue to yell at the TV when they let one slide by. Thanks Rob. by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 41 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:06:15 PM (0+)
|
|
more news
With such an important election coming up, why don't network TV broadcast news programs go back to an hour format like we had in the 50's and 60's? maybe they'd have time to talk issues. by Johnny E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: network news
network news had been replaced by cable news and the net. On cable, there are plenty of hour shows. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM (0+)
|
|
The right track
Intended or otherwise, I think you have hit on something here that reaches far beyond your mea culpa about missing a question. (And, apologetically, is a subject I have a lot to say about) There is an obvious disdain towards the traditional media coverage of politics in particular, but, by-and-large, you are correct--interviewers never know where the questions might lead and can only do so much to shorten a lengthy, wandering response from the person being interviewed. So, with time constraints, you were in the same boat as many broadcast anchors (without the corporate influence). I have a background in writing for several newspapers and magazines, and several years as a consultant investigator to Federal agencies and had the authority to administer the Oath. Whether you have done what I have or have an interest in combining the two into investigative journalism you will find that investigative procedures under the law, such as discovery, have little or no time constraints and so allow for follow up questions. Journalism does have time (and space) limitations, as you have just experienced, and can put the interviewer in a position of making a decision- ‘Do I use time to follow this line of comment or move on with the agenda? A difficult question to answer when the clock is ticking and you have someone else in the wings. Then there is making time and space for advertising. What’s news, what’s not? If you take something like HCR 362 you will notice that it has scant coverage in the major media. The first question any managing editor will ask is how important and timely is this matter? In the sense of what is news, HCR 362 doesn’t yet qualify to stand on its own. News papers are supposed to report the news and even if an editor sees something interesting about that bill, covering it before its time risks stepping over the line into news-making rather than reporting. Some have circumvented that ‘rule’ in the interest of scooping other news sources, but they risk having used that time and space for an issue that stalls or disappears. What you get from major media as follow up, are inviting the guests back and sections expanding on the subject such as in many newspapers and on websites. This is a traditional media approach but has recently come in conflict with a growing number of readers and viewers insisting their voices be heard and their questions be asked and answered (immediately, thank you!) In response they have added comment sections and links to the writers and, I suspect, figure the reader will contact their elected officials for more information or an explanation for their position or vote. Again, readers and viewers want a more immediate response. So you are filling a gap here, Bob. Cheryl’s questions were good and targeted (and somewhat relentless) but keep in mind that Rep. Wexler’s answers are probably very similar to answers that would be given by any Democrat who supports the resolution. I fully support your project and its intentions, and you have taken things to the next level in the context of what similar websites are doing. Your next step? I think investigations and journalism can be combined by recognizing that the fishing expedition typical of discovery in an investigation before trial has a place in investigative journalism before the interview. It is there that your instincts and opinions are fleshed out or corrected and your questions are developed. Having written about Congress for seven years I am frequently frustrated by the obvious: The writer didn’t have sufficient background to notice when the interviewee was making something up or giving incomplete information on a bill. From a civic standpoint they are failing their readers. That having been said, Cheryl did a great job of staying on her feet when sensing she wasn’t getting an answer, a pretty impressive skill that seems to come naturally to her. On the other hand, what was the interview after? It is important and topical to get him to weigh in on the perception that HCR 362 as an authorization or facilitation to attack Iran and you have put Rep Wexler on record. The resolution format, however, is set up to explain in advance why the resolution and its demands are necessary. Is that information accurate? Spun? False? Only time will tell if this resolution takes us places we don’t want to go. The questions remains, is it for valid reasons? You are treading that fine line between news reporting, news making and opinion as is the case with most op-eds. I think the media would like to move in your direction but has constraints. You, on the other hand, are moving in their direction without constraints. I commend your willingness to invite comments on this and the direction you have taken to expand access to information on this issue. Media will pick up on HCR 362 as it approaches the House floor. You got there first. With adding some background homework before the interviews, grueling as it can be, I think you will grab the ring. by Robert McElroy (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:41:08 AM (0+)
|
|
Great work
The key is that you did the follow up... The point is that good journalists require a conscience! This would seem to be a commodity getting ever-scarcer. oh, and.... Happy belated Birthday Rob!! by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
