Inside PBS Blog
Insights into PBS programming and personalities
Five Good Answers from Gwen Ifill
One of the things I'm learning from the PBS Engage blog is that you guys ask some sharp questions.
I asked last week for "Five Good Questions for Gwen Ifill," and you didn't disappoint.
Check out her candid responses - including her answer to the final question, one I've been wondering about myself.
Who has been the toughest interview for you and why? Who would you like to interview you?
L.J.
The toughest interview is the one where you forget to ask the best question.
But I must say, the toughest interviewing assignment I have ever had is preparing to moderate the 2004 vice presidential debate between Vice President Cheney and Sen. John Edwards.
Jim Lehrer gave me some very good advice to hold my questions as close to the vest as possible.
I had several tasks: coming up with good questions on a wide variety of topics; crafting them in a way to elicit real answers; and then keeping the candidates within time limits - all with 46 million people watching live.
I was nervous, right up until the moment I walked onto the stage and realized that, because I had the questions, I had the power. That relaxed me right away.
Since I'm writing a book that comes out next year, I suppose I'd most want an Oprah interview. Wouldn't you?
What was the most unexpected reaction from one of your guests?
Bryan
I suppose I was surprised when Afghan President Hamid Karzai asked me whether or not I thought he should wear his trademark hat for the interview we were about to begin.
For the record, I said yes. It was a dashing hat.
How do you manage to keep your personal politics at arm's length when you interview people with whom you disagree?
David Wasserberg
It is not as hard as you might imagine.
If you are truly curious about answers, you are less tempted to impose your opinions on others.
I truly believe most people are worth listening to, even if you might not personally agree with their point of view.
Our viewers, I have discovered, are quite good at sorting out the wheat from the chaff on their own, without me telling them what to think.
Many people believe the press failed to do its job in the run up to the Iraq war. Has Beltway reporting changed as a result?
vastleft
I am not sure what you mean by "Beltway reporting."
Do you mean the New York Times reporting that exposed the Justice Department's wireless wiretapping?
The Washington Post reporting that exposed the poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center?
Or do you mean the reporting done by Pentagon reporters from the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I continue to maintain that, on balance, reporters tell us more than we would otherwise know, and that the breadth and importance of the stories we break, easily outnumber the ones we miss.
You would be my pick to fill Tim Russert's shoes on "Meet the Press." You are an incredible moderator. Would you take that job if offered?
Kathleen
Thanks, but I think that's terribly premature. I love the job I have now.
Comments on this post have now been closed.
Comments
Post new comment
Subscribe
Recent Comments
Looking forward to watching this, especially Atkins.
...
I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!
...
Thanks for sharing. i really appreciate it that you shared with us such a informative post.....
I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!...
Thanks for sharing. i really appreciate it that you shared with us such a informative post.....
Typical circling of the
Typical circling of the wagons on the Beltway journalism question. Of course you think you've done a good job Gwen. Next time you and Condi have lunch, the two of you can talk about what a great job you've done and then go shoe shopping.
While the response did not
While the response did not directly address all potential aspects of the question, I thought the response implied that some journalists have been doing an excellent job, whether or not all journalists in "the beltway" have. I listen to NPR and PBS regularly and often hear much better reporting in those contexts than anywhere else, whether or not those news items make the more mainstream headlines. That is, if most journalists have not been constantly pushing, some have--often to the detriment of their status and certainly to the detriment of their "patriotic" reputations. Given the breadth of the question and the examples she used in her response, to suggest that she and Dr. Rice go "shoe shopping" is an extremely sexist and unfair comment. If one does not think a respondent answered a questions clearly, fair enough, but to add gendered bias is inappropriate; had someone posting made a (blatantly) racially derogatory comment, likely the post would have been flagged. Yet casting 2 influential, even powerful, African American women as the "ladies who lunch" and who might only shoe shop when they get together (and that the journalist might therefore tow the "party line") is acceptable?
Too generous by half
PJS, is too trusting of the media. NPR and PBS may be better than the complete drivel of the networks and cable TV but this is not much of a compliment. The self-satisfaction of the 'Beltway' media (which Ifill cynically pretends doesn't exist) is obscene with rote lines trotted out in self -defense, "I get attacked from both sides so I must be doing something right", "We cover more than we miss", "It's not our fault, we merely report the news ".etc
BTW the source of the Condi/shoe-shopping reference can be found here;
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080103.shtml
PJS I'd suggest you become a regular reader of Somerby at http://www.dailyhowler.com as well as Glenn Greenwald http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald to gain a fuller understanding of the machinations of our media.
You know
You know perfectly well what was meant by "Beltway Journalism," and what was meant by the question. If you're carrying two precious antiques and drop one, and are asked why, you don't answer the question by explaining why you didn't drop the other one.
Right now it looks like the government is hyping up a future attack on Iran.
The NIE and the IAEA both say Iran doesn't have nukes, doesn't even have weapons-grade material, yet the USA is doing everything it can to make Americans afraid of a country about a twentieth our size.
So, WHAT is the journalistic community doing to debunk the government's spurious claims that Iran is such an immanent danger to us?
Yesterday the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, gave a substantial interview. He talked about the possibility of the US or Israel striking Iran. This was reported on the PBS News.
However, according to the NY Times, Mottaki ALSO said Iran was willing to negotiate on their nuclear issues. This was NOT mentioned on the News.
WHY??? It makes it look as if PBS is going along with the hard-liners who want us embroiled in yet another disastrous war!
To paraphrase vastleft's question, is the national media conscious that they might have the opportunity, not to mention the duty to the country and our military, to investigate and defuse yet another hyped-up "threat"?
It's even worse than that, Cathy
Gwen is celebrating the thoughtful write-ups her colleagues did about the tragically broken state of the antique they negligently or willfully dropped.
phony question = BS answer...
re: Ifill's BS answer about Beltway journalism... it should be noted that VastLeft's original question was a lot more specific and incisive than that pap that the moderator here presented to Ifill... here is the original question..
"The media all-but-unanimously pronounced Colin Powell’s fact-challenged Feb. 2003 UN presentation “compelling.â€
As a direct result, the public supported a disastrous and unnecessary war.
What has changed in Beltway reporting as a result of this deadly fiasco?"
Now, compare that to the "many people think..." question that Ifill was allowed to answer.
You want to know why Beltway journalism is so corrupt -- its because people like Ifill are protected from addressing real questions....
Bush's warrantless surveillance program
Ifill's rhetorical question on Bush's surveillance program is riddled with errors; let's unpack them. She says:
Do you mean the New York Times reporting that exposed the Justice Department's wireless wiretapping?
1. The program was not the "Justice Department's," but Bush's. In fact, portions of the still-secret program were so nefarious that John Ashcroft refused to sign off on them from his hospital bed, when then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales tried to force him to.
2. Worse, the shorthand for the program is "warrantless wiretapping," not "wireless wiretapping." That Ifill gets this wrong is doubly unfortunate; first, because the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the program comes precisely because it is "warrantless"; second, because "wireless wiretapping," considered technically, makes it sound like the program is about tapping telephone lines, when, as we have come to understand, the program is about capturing all Internet data, including email.
3. Even worse, the Times story is an example of complete journalistic malfeasance, since Bill Keller, as then ombudsman Bryan Calame pointed out, suppressed the story until after George Bush had been safely elected, yet another example of the press picking our president for us.
4. And even worse, with presumptive nominee Barack Obama's support of the FISA reform bill, which includes a provision that grants the telcos retroactive immunity for their participation in the program, "warrantless surveillance" has now become an issue in the Presidential campaign. How can Ifill be expected to cover this story if she's ignorant of basic facts on the issues? Wait, wait, don't tell me: The same way our famously free press covers ALL the issues. I knew that.
Unfortunately, I think the only thing NPR understands is money, just like our political parties. Therefore, I won't be renewing my subscription to my local public broadcasting affiliate, which carries NPR. It's unfortunate that they must suffer the pain you created, but there it is; it's the only way to get your attention.
Your site rules pose a challenge
No profanity? So how am I to properly respond to Gwen's "answer" to my question.
Actually, I take that back. It wasn't my question. It was PBS's lovingly neutered version of the question I asked, but with my name still attached to it, and without any indication (unless one bothered to read a linked page) that it had been edited. I wonder if even Fox News would have done such a thing.
Well, for those who can stomach a four-letter word or two but not a media that has lost virtually all respect for the truth and the solemnity of its mission (as opposed to its aggrandizing and unearned sense of its own Seriousness), my full response is found here:
http://tinyurl.com/57dr2c
I would like an honest
I would like an honest answer to the original question sent in:
The media all-but-unanimously pronounced Colin Powell’s fact-challenged Feb. 2003 UN presentation “compelling.â€
As a direct result, the public supported a disastrous and unnecessary war.
What has changed in Beltway reporting as a result of this deadly fiasco?
Has the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the NPR's Washington Bureau, the New York Times' Washington bureau, or any of the four "major network" news broadcasters -- CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX -- changed any of its policies, procedures, protocols, or editorial agendas as a result of the more than 4900 GI deaths caused by their chorus in favor of a needless, endless, goalless war in Iraq?
Or are those media outlets still so enchanted with the trappings of power and the camaraderie of the politicians they're supposed to be covering that they no longer realize how co-opted they are?
Bad question
The original question was ridiculous. Of course they changed it. You can't ask a loaded, opinionated question like that and expect a truthful answer. Any good interviewer asks questions in a manner that is neutral and singular in order to let the subject respond truthfully. That's the point of an interview--getting the subject's opinion--not a platform for expressing your own. Guiding a subject in such a manner is inappropriate. Bravo PBS.
Good question
The original question was the original question. But, even if you thought it had been properly edited, the answer is crap. Why "Bravo PBS" for a lousy, supercilious answer?
And, why do you suppose the phrasing of the sharp-edged original question would cause Miss Ifill to answer untruthfully?
Is it because Miss Ifill might feel the question accusative? Because Miss Ifill responded to the edited question defensively. As well she might, considering that the weekly show she stewards, Washington Week in Review, is gossipy and inane, and destructive to the country's welfare. There's rarely the slightest acknowledgement of the press corps gross misconduct over the last ten years on that program. A few weeks ago, Martha Raddatz led a subpanel discussing the Scott McClellan book: they were really concerned about what this book said about . . . McClellan's character, that he would betray his boss like that!!!
The truth is that the NewsHour and Washington Week in Review are unworthy offerings and ought to be scrapped. They are wasteful and destructive. This country needs and deserves better journalism, public and private.
Meet the Press
It's too bad you don't know what "Beltway journalism" is -- you practice it all the time. It's characterized by an overabundance of self-esteem (also known as arrogance and in many cases narcissism) and a deplorable lack of incite, responsibility, and perspective. That's why non-issues are pumped up as earth-shaking crises, and real crises are ignored or trivialized.
It would be great if you were chosen for Tim Russert's spot on Meet the Press. That would get you off PBS and onto commercial television where I would never see you again.
No, Not a "Good Answer"
The question was about the reporting and punditry leading up to the Iraq war.
Ifill's response, "…the breadth and importance of the stories we break, easily outnumber the ones we miss" simply has nothing to do with the question.
The question, again, concerned reporting during the run-up to Iraq.
Watering down the questions to nothing?
Ifill begins her response to what was presented as vastleft's question with the words, "I am not sure what you mean by ' Beltway reporting.' "
The original question was entirely clear about what was meant -- not that the neutered version presented in Ifill's Q&A could have left much doubt unless you desperately wanted some kind of a hook to hang an opaque, supercilious answer on -- so I would really like to know how the original question was watered down to the version that Ifill answered so dismissively, and whether similar changes were made to the other questions presented.
Thanks.
Ifell shows us why the media has failed us
It was a snotty, contentless answer to a good question.
Shorter Gwen: Shut-upm serf!
"Good" Dog Answers
Oh, sure. They're GREAT answers once you rephrase the questions! You in the media didn't do your jobs, when it was vitally important to the American public for you to do them, and as a result the public no longer trusts you. It's as simple as that, and history, which can now be set straight by the blogosphere, will not be kind to you. The MSM is a dying influence. Deservedly.
Five Good Answers from Gwen Ifill
Bad news for you Gwen, as a member of the cowardly Washington Press corp, you may think you're important, but the internet has made you and your fellow "Jeff Gannons" irrelevant.
At the beginning of the most unpopular war in U.S. history you and your colleges decided to protect the most unpopular, dishonest President in our history and have continued to do so for the past eight years.
Thank God none of you sycophants were around when Nixon was in office.
You and your NPB and NPR cowards have made me proud to not pledge after more than 20 years of supporting public broadcasting. All one has to do is listen to the BBC for clear evidence of your cowardice.
This weekend NPR didn't have the guts to accurately review the career of Jesse Helms, it was figuratively and litterlarly white washed: Since NPR doesn't have the integrity to document Senator Helm's unambiguous and clear record of racism, how can it be trusted on other issues?
Well it can't. Hope you enjoy picking up the check from the mining, oil and defense industries, because you have no credibility outside the beltway.
If we ever meet I will be sure to sing "Dixie" since it was OK for Jesse to do it with out any epercussions.
No, Gwen, VastLeft was
No, Gwen, VastLeft was referring to the kind of reporting that Bill Moyers criticized on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Could you and your colleagues have done a better job before the war? The Knight-Ridder guys proved that you could have.
Even better is Digby's answer to you, Ms. Ifill
It's right here, and I think it's about exactly what you deserve to hear.
You and Mara Liaason are among the best reasons to stop donating to PBS.
left-wing Ifill should not do debate
Do us all a favor and recluse yourself lefty.
Joe Vogler/sessionist in Alaska
Why has not anyone asked the question of Palin's concerning the above matter?
Roger Jones
500 South Westmoreland Avenue, #301
Los Angeles, CA 90020
(213) 739 8586
Last night's debate
Why didn't you engage Sarah Palin more when she blatantly didn't answer your questions? People saying she did a good job are saying that because she didn't stumble. But she didn't engage in the actual debate. You could have just as well had an empty podium. We know she knows a bit, again a bit, about energy, but the other issues she knows virtually nothing except the talking points the campaign has deemed it safe for her to spew. Go to any stump speech of the McCain clan and you would hear the same tripe. Sorry for any spelling errors.