NationStates Jolt Archive

A reporter at a sparsely attended Mitt Romney press conference challenged Romney on a claim and actually pressed him on it. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/17/romney.reporter.spat.cnn?iref=videosearch)

It's not a major thing that will bring Romney crumbling down. The reporter is reprimanded by Romney's press secretary afterwards (and told by a supporter that he's ugly and rude, just at the end...) for being 'unprofessional.'

But was it? Is his profession to just write down what people say and then publish it, or to actually challenge the newsmakers? Should he have saved it for, I guess, his blog?

Sorry about the obnoxious ad that precedes the video.

i think its great that a reporter decided to call a candidate on his crap. why should he just be a conduit for lies? we have political ads for that.

...and he was never heard from again...

:eek:

It's good that he called bullshit on Romney but as you saw from the reaction, challenging these guys is not allowed. I bet he can't wait until he gets to hide behind his Tony Snow.

There's no question, that guys now off the bus...

I think there's a real problem with the American system in terms of a lack of confrontation and a lack of opportunity to challenge the President or people running for President. Some kind of UK-style President's Questions would have destroyed the likes of Bush, of that I am sure.

It's good that he called bullshit on Romney but as you saw from the reaction, challenging these guys is not allowed. I bet he can't wait until he gets to hide behind his Tony Snow.

I bet he can't wait until he gets to hide behind his Tony Snow.

I had never actually seen or heard Tony Snow talking until I watched him on Bill Maher's show. And that guy couldn't find a piece of hay in a haystack.

What happened to the day when it was the reporters JOB to not only report the truth but dig deep enough to find it. Instead they all just crawl up people asses and take what there fed, it's sickening. Good for him to actually stand up to someone.

A reporter at a sparsely attended Mitt Romney press conference challenged Romney on a claim and actually pressed him on it. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/17/romney.reporter.spat.cnn?iref=videosearch)

It's not a major thing that will bring Romney crumbling down. The reporter is reprimanded by Romney's press secretary afterwards (and told by a supporter that he's ugly and rude, just at the end...) for being 'unprofessional.'

But was it? Is his profession to just write down what people say and then publish it, or to actually challenge the newsmakers? Should he have saved it for, I guess, his blog?

Sorry about the obnoxious ad that precedes the video.

Wow.

That was horrible to watch - I'm all on the side of the reporter, rationally, but even *I* thought he was being rude and unprofessional, which showed me quite drastically how lulled in I have gotten (and I'm not even American, so I don't get softball campaign coverage 24/7) by what we usually see of the really big political talking heads on the media.

We see them challenged and attacked hard by political opponents in parliamentary debates and the like, but never really by the press.

We do have a few hardhitting political talk shows here where they're in the hot seat, that's true, but stuff like that never comes up in a setting like a press conference.
In a press conference, they all sit there and record and write down even though their eyes must be rolling all the way back into their heads listening to drivel they KNOW isn't true. But nobody ever just goes "What? No!" like this guy did.

And boy, was everybody embarrassed. Including me.

:/

My girlfriend (a reporter, same as me) once upset Tony Blair by asking an off-limits question at a press conference. Naturally, I am very proud of her.

Is his profession to just write down what people say and then publish it, or to actually challenge the newsmakers? Should he have saved it for, I guess, his blog?


Different publications approach this issue in different ways. Some consider it their role to report both sides of the debate and just let the public decide. Others challenge people directly. It depends on what you want to achieve and also, unfortunately, on whether upsetting this particular person and their PR crew is worth it purely for the purposes of one story.

That Romney bloke wouldn't last five minutes against a decent political interviewer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/presenters.shtml#eddie), much less a real rottweiler like Paxo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Paxman).

My girlfriend (a reporter, same as me) once upset Tony Blair by asking an off-limits question at a press conference. Naturally, I am very proud of her.
And what, may I ask, was that question?
Idly curious

Having just watched the clip, I'd say that reporter hit a very sore point with Romney - especially since he felt the need to continue the argument after the conference ended and then get his press secretary to attack the reporter.
That speaks volumes to me - and I hope (rather forlornly I might add) to many would-be voters in the US.

Problem in US media/politics is not so much that the media has grown soft per se (though that is a definite issue), it's more to do with the advent of 24 hour news channels. The desperation to get the next big breaking story out first has driven them to forsake investigative journalism. Politics has latched onto this and exploited the news media obsession with being first by handing out prepared soundbites and reports, thus making the reporters jobs much easier and quicker. And - of course - any reporter deviating from the mean (like the guy in the OP, Geln Johnson) will no doubt find he's been banned from any further Romney press-ops. Thus politics enforces their own extremely-skewed view onto the media, and through them, onto us.
We the public still have the lingering idea that news is news and not opinion. So we're still likely to believe what is presented as factual.
A sorry state of affairs indeed.

And what, may I ask, was that question?
Idly curious

Pretty straightforward really - she asked whether he thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq would have harmed his support among Muslim voters.

A reasonable enough question, but it didn't go down at all well with Tony's Cronies. Of course there's this rumour that we're supposed to be a free and democratic country, in which case politicians should expect to be asked awkward questions from time to time. Crap like that is why I prefer court reporting to dealing with politicians - you know where you are with a simple, down to earth, violent criminal.

Problem in US media/politics is not so much that the media has grown soft per se (though that is a definite issue), it's more to do with the advent of 24 hour news channels. The desperation to get the next big breaking story out first has driven them to forsake investigative journalism. Politics has latched onto this and exploited the news media obsession with being first by handing out prepared soundbites and reports, thus making the reporters jobs much easier and quicker. And - of course - any reporter deviating from the mean (like the guy in the OP, Geln Johnson) will no doubt find he's been banned from any further Romney press-ops. Thus politics enforces their own extremely-skewed view onto the media, and through them, onto us.
We the public still have the lingering idea that news is news and not opinion. So we're still likely to believe what is presented as factual.
A sorry state of affairs indeed.
I thought we were a free country:eek:
Hail Big brother for raising our chocolate ration to 20 grams!(I hope I'm dead before that happens)

Is his profession to just write down what people say and then publish it, or to actually challenge the newsmakers?

Well, one would think the latter in the free world, but as this is from the USA the former seems to apply much more aptly.

I for one would like to see situations like this more often. Of course there's a time and a place for everything, but politicians should be expected to talk with the people, not only to the people.

Heh... But this made me think about why the US is ranked at #48 on the Reporters without Borders press freedom index (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025) - behind Nicaragua.

Reporters without Borders press freedom index (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025)

The countries of northern Europe are always the ones who behave best.

Heh, as is our habit. ;)

The countries of northern Europe are always the ones who behave best.

Heh, as is our habit. ;)

Business as usual, eh? :p

Well, one would think the latter in the free world, but as this is from the USA the former seems to apply much more aptly.

Unfortunately, all to accurate Fass

Unfortunately, all to accurate Fass

Seconded.

Pretty straightforward really - she asked whether he thought invading Afghanistan and Iraq would have harmed his support among Muslim voters.

A reasonable enough question, but it didn't go down at all well with Tony's Cronies.
What an extremely reasonable, almost soft, question to ask. It's appalling that:
1. It hadn't been asked of him earlier, and
2. That his cronies would get so upset about it. Surely they should have known he could get a question like this.

Speaking of Blair, his official portrait is appalling. Not the painting itself mind you, which is rather good, but the fact that it
...shows the former prime minister wearing a commemorative poppy, to represent his leadership role during the Iraq war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7197426.stm
Great leadership there, Tony. Dragging the UK into an unnecessary war built on lies and misinformation. Does the tradition of the poppy proud.

The countries of northern Europe are always the ones who behave best.

Heh, as is our habit. ;)
Then again, what exactly does any media in Iceland, Norway, Finland or Sweden have to comment on? Today's snow texture?

Looking through that list, I'm surprised to see China rate so highly.

What an extremely reasonable, almost soft, question to ask. It's appalling that:
1. It hadn't been asked of him earlier, and
2. That his cronies would get so upset about it. Surely they should have known he could get a question like this.

Especially as the electioneering tour bus this took place on was in a part of the country with a large Muslim community. Really, he should have had an answer ready - he must have looked really bad when they went to press and told the public he'd refused to answer the question.

As for 2... well, they had forseen it. However, rather than bothering to dream up an answer, they'd just told everyone in advance that he wouldn't be answering questions on that topic. Shocking, I know.

Come to think of it, I would have expected better of Blair. When he became Prime Minister he had a reputation for being extremely good at managing (or, you might say, manipulating) the media. By the time he became Labour leader, he was on first name terms with a lot of political correspondents. That was unheard-of for a politician in Britain. A smart move on his part, but bad news for impartial journalism.

Deviation from the political script in America is a Class A felony.

Then again, what exactly does any media in Iceland, Norway, Finland or Sweden have to comment on? Today's snow texture?

Um... Corruption in an oil-rich country for example? Abuse of power or positions (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2187986.ece)? Wrongful allocation of government resources (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2189221.ece) and funding (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2205320.ece)?

Then again, what exactly does any media in Iceland, Norway, Finland or Sweden have to comment on? Today's snow texture?

Oh please - It's not like there's any snow outside. :p