Which professional interviewer do we expect to not lob Obama softballs he hasn't extensively prepped for? I mean have you watched David Gregory host MTP? An actual David Gregory quote, about why he didn't press President Bush further during the Iraq War leadup when he was NBC's White House Corespondent with briefing room access:

That's the professional journalist who hosts the most esteemed "tough interview" show in the country. Even Russert, king of the "zomg gotcha" question, the paradigm of the "tough interview", really wasn't all that confrontational by any reasonable standard.

If anything, I think town-halls are far more likely to produce a tough question than someone on the payroll of one of the networks. If the concern here is over privileged access -- that the Obama Admin will jerk around a network if they get too uppity in their questions -- ABC can easily excuse away tough questions from random anons as opposed to Charles Gibson or Cokie Roberts. Not that I think a tough question is at all likely in a town hall, either. But Wynton is right, you far overestimate the skill of the contemporary American journalist. At least the ones the networks typically trot out for a high profile Presidential interview.

I'm highly, highly, highly skeptical of the 950 billion in "savings" by this plan. I can't find where they get this number from...

Anyone have linkage?

If I could have an opportunity to follow up when he gives his non-answer, sure. I would never be given the chance, so why bother?

False dichotomy?

No, I completely disagree. Russert was a very good interviewer who had no problem confronting his interviewees on their question dodging. He was also exceptional at follow up questions. His interviews with Bush in particular were very firm. (Though he always pulled off the friendly mannerisms)

Anyway, I totally disagree that the townhall style will produce tougher questions. For one, there's no room for followup typically, so the responder can just go into a canned response that doesn't pertain to the question.

No. Just because I listen to the press briefings doesn't mean I'm following this particular issue all that closely or even that I have an opinion on the merits of the plan at all.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a referendum on Russert. One, because he's dead and I'm sure he was a nice guy and all and no one wants to say a nice guy wasn't great at his job posthumously, and two, because it's not really relevant. But former VP Cheney's office thought Russert's show was it was a good place to "control message", ie, repeat talking points without challenge:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501951_pf.html

Also, here's Russert lamenting his lack of access to government officials to ask them key questions:

Russert's reputation as a tough questioner mostly came from the childish, useless "gotcha" questions he used to ask people: making them try to correctly pronounce the names of foreign leaders, ask them 5 countries that border some other country, or dragging up quotes from fifteen years prior to trip someone up, ask someone like John McCain if he remembered what he had for lunch a week ago (lol he's old) or introducing tabloidy stuff about spouses and other things that are essentially irrelevant to informing the audience and mostly existed to embarrass people and make his own news. This was actually a charge the right levied at him far more than the left. It just so happened they were, by and large, correct about it: namely that most of Russert's reputation as a "tough questioner" were due to the fact that he just liked to ask embarrassing questions, not anything actually enlightening to the audience. When it came to the real meat and potatoes of policy issues, or anything of actual import, he was largely a push-over and preferred to focus on Beltway gossipy stuff.

I'll grant that he was a good bit better than his peers, but that says more about his peers abject failures at journalism and asking tough questions to powerful people, not about Russert being any great cage-rattler.

This is an impressively loose inference.

Firstly, you are equivocating a "pro" in the notes of someone assisting Cheney with the words "control message" with -- in your words -- "ie, repeat talking points without challenge"

Cheney didn't show up on MTP and repeat talking points without challenge from Russert. I'm pretty sure I saw all of Russert's major interviews, particularly with high level Bush admins and I never saw one that had little or no challenge. Did I miss one where they could come on without pointed and challenging questions?

Again, if Russert were alive and were doing the interview, I'd be a lot more secure in the journalistic integrity of his approach. To be sure, he was moderate left, but that didn't prevent him from asking tough questions and follow up questions to both sides of the divide.

And therein is the irony. I actually don't disagree with much of what you say here, with the exception of degree. The bulk of his interview questions were definitely topical and relevant. Yes, he had his pet areas, but less so than his peers -- much like you put it.

That's why I wouldn't consider him a "perfect journalist" -- rather, one who I'd be more comfortable with, relatively speaking. Unlike many other journalists sympathetic to Obama, he would become a lot more familiar with the opposition's best standing arguments and try to levy them well.

I've been away from my TV set for several days, so I guess I missed it.

Does anybody have links to transcripts or youtubes of these horribly biased shows from the White House about Obama's health care plan put on by ABC?

Oh great and powerful Obamamesiah, how in your infinite wisdom do you foresee success with this program?

Ignoring for a moment that the idea itself is pathetically foolish and flys in the face of rational economic thinking. Our government has no successful programs in its resume, and Socialized medicine programs are overwhelming the budgets of countries with homogeneous citizenry who's populations are smaller than many of our large cities.

In short, how can you be a super genius and still advocate a plan that cannot and will not work ? Why do you hate us so much that you seem intent on bankrupting our country?

Happy to help you out. Here are just a few quotes from ABC medical editor Timothy Johnson, who has been promoting government run health care in one form or another for many years.

To Hillary Clinton, promoting her health care plan in 1994, Tim Johnson said: "So at least from the physicians represented here, you get a 100 percent vote, including mine, for universal coverage."

In 1993, referring to the Clinton's health care proposals, Johnson said: "I say the Clintons are almost heroes in my mind for finally facing up to the terrible problems we have with our current health care system and bringing it to the attention of the public....Most people, I think, will be better off."

In 2007 Johnson had the chance to interview then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He asked her about critics of her health care proposal: "Do you think the Republicans who are against it are immoral?" (I am guessing Johnson does).

Earlier this year, Tim Johnson aired these comments on health care in America: "I want to let everybody hear, and that is the national shame of how we spend more than twice as much, per person, on health care in his country as the average of all other industrialized countries, yet we're the only one that doesn't have universal coverage.”

Timothy Johnson has been an advocate for more government involvement in health care for many years on ABC.

I am sure White House Communications official Linda Douglass will be happy to have this air on ABC, her longtime employer before leaving objective journalism to work for Democrats. It will be interesting to hear the opinions of George Stephanopolous as well. Part of the ABC revolving door between Democratic partisans and "objective" reporters on their air.

Wow.

I heard he had some "leanings" -- but nothing like that.




(Wait, I'm starting to get the pattern of this thread. I think I know what happens next...)

Just in...

From USNews:

Before taking this for its face value, I'm anxious to hear ABC's reason for this. (Assuming this is an accurate summary of ABC's action)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of this happing either. I don't know of any programming for a major network that refused paid advertising that opposed the subject matter.

I'm assuming there is a more salient reason, as this could only look bad for ABC's credibility if true.

STOP WITH THE HYSTERICS /dvaut1