Only some candidates are ‘staying on safe ground’

August 13, 2007

I found Howard Kurtz’s WaPo column today quite frustrating.

Rudy Giuliani has appeared on only one Sunday talk show this year: “Fox News Sunday.” Fred Thompson has made eight television appearances in 2007, all on Fox News, six of them sit-downs with Sean Hannity, who sometimes campaigns for GOP candidates.

Mitt Romney has chatted on Fox 13 times this year, including yesterday’s appearance in Iowa on “Fox News Sunday,” while granting one other Sunday interview, to ABC’s “This Week.”

The leading Democratic presidential candidates present a mirror image, with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards granting no interviews to Fox since January, and Edwards now bashing Rupert Murdoch’s network as unfair to his party.

To a striking degree, the candidates are picking their spots, carefully choosing which media operations they will court and which they will ignore. That leaves some of them preaching to the political choir, but also shields them from especially aggressive questioning…. [S]taying on safe ground not only prevents the candidates from reaching a broader audience, it deprives them of the chance to develop their reflexes by swinging at fastballs.

Ugh. To hear Kurtz tell it, Democratic and Republican candidates are making the exact same mistake — Republicans are sticking to Fox News because they don’t want any tough questions, while Dems are avoiding Fox News because they’re avoiding tough questions.

But that’s wrong — or, more accurately, half-wrong.

Giuliani and Romney stick to Fox, while Thompson, when he’s not hanging out with Hannity, is willing to branch out to National Review and RedState. In this sense, Kurtz is right; these candidates, lacking the courage of their convictions and the ability to defend their ideas, stick to partisan news outlets, fearful that legitimate journalists might challenge them in embarrassing ways.

And then, there are the Dems. John Edwards has recently done Face the Nation, This Week, and Meet the Press. Barack Obama has recently appeared on Face the Nation, This Week and CNN’s Late Edition, and appeared on Meet the Press shortly before announcing his presidential campaign.

Under Kurtz’s thesis, Edwards and Obama are intentionally shielding themselves from “aggressive questioning” and “staying on safe ground.” I don’t know if Kurtz has ever watched Face the Nation, This Week, Meet the Press, or Late Edition, but none of them qualify as safe ground. They’re aggressive talk shows, hosted by professionals on legitimate news outlets. There are no softballs. Candidates who are “picking their spots,” hoping to “preach to the political choir” don’t go on these shows; they avoid these shows.

Kurtz added that “politicians tend to gravitate toward what they see as friendly arenas.” But when it comes to media interviews, Dems aren’t doing that at all — they’re going into unfriendly arenas and dealing with substantive issues. Since when is Meet the Press a “friendly arena”?

Kurtz had half a good point — Republicans are too fearful to stray from the Republicans’ cable network. But he couldn’t leave it at that; Kurtz had to figure out a way to stretch his thesis to include criticism of Dems, even though his point isn’t supported by the facts.

That darn slippery slope again… People continue to question the agendas behind venues chosen more than simply focusing in on the candidates’ content. I tell you what frustrates me: If everyone would participate throughout all the available mainstream network venues (at least once or twice), this probably wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion.

  • Further proof of the fact that Howard Kurtz is a “useful idiot” – remember that he’s married to a top Republican propagandist. What are the last words he hears before falling asleep?

    It’s time to take down Kurtz as “independent observer” and publicly expose him for what he is: a Republican undercover operative.

  • But CB, MtP IS friendly area, for Cheney, remember the Libby trial and Kathy Martin?

  • Howie the Hack is a pretty blatant partisan putz. If he believes this, it’s probably because John Hindraker told him it was so. If Hindraker says so, it’s always good enough for Howie!

    There’s no rational excuse for Howie on this. His beat is politics and media. Surely he’s seen the Dem/repub breakdowns for the Sunday talkies.

  • Damn right! Besides, democrats ask tougher questions of their own candidates than the GOP could. The difference is the motivation behind the questions. Some want answers while others(Fox etc.) want information they can smear you with, they want a fight not a discussion or a debate. Their questions to Dems are all hypothetical situations asked to illicit theoretical responses which can latter be used to attack them with.

    There is no comparison between the campaign dialogue of repub and dem candidates. The U-Tube debate will be a first for GOP candidates unless those audiences are handpicked by the candidates also. Face it, the GOP refuses to talk to the people and their interviews are more like rallies with no fact checking, follow up or opposition.

    …”Republicans are too fearful to stray from the Republicans’ cable network. But he couldn’t leave it at that; Kurtz had to figure out a way to stretch his thesis to include criticism of Dems, even though his point isn’t supported by the facts.”

    Exactly.

  • So…Kurtz must not have watched much Meet The Press, or Face the Nation, or This Week or CNN, because when I watch, I see the softballs going to the GOP/right-wing guests and the hard ones going to the Dems/liberals. Worse, I see the Dems getting boxed into GOP framing over and over, and I see a very heavy hand with Republican talking points. Time and again, when Democrats are on, the moderators seem to feel obligated to act as GOP surrogates, but when the GOP is on, it’s like “wink-wink, nudge-nudge, let’s just be best buds having a little chat – we’ll get your message out – don’t worry!”

    It’s why I very seldom watch them anymore.

  • CB, I’m glad you read this crap and report so I don’t have to. I gave up on Kurtz, Fineman, Kornblut, et, al, long ago in favor of this and other blogs. And when their bobbleheads bubble up on Hardball and such venues, I either put it on mute or leave the room until it’s time for Countdown. Also nice to not have to hear that grating Tweety voice and laugh too, hehe. Their perverted conceptions of “balance” are embarrassing … it’s just that they don’t realize it (yet).

  • I agree totally with #2 Dan….and I would also add CNN’s new star Campbell Brown. She gets her good-night talking points from new husband Dan Senor…noecon extraordinaire (formerly in the Bush admintration…assistant to Bremer in Baghdad). And the beat goes on lady and gentlemen…depressing.

  • What, you mean it’s not reasonable to divide the media into two equal spheres: Fox and non-Fox?

    I’ve taken the liberty of inserting a few words you inadvertently omitted from one paragraph:

    I don’t know if Kurtz has ever watched Face the Nation, This Week, Meet the Press, or Late Edition, but none of them qualify as safe ground for Democrats. They’re aggressive talk shows, hosted by professionals on legitimate news outlets. There are no softballs for Democrats. Democratic candidates who are “picking their spots,” hoping to “preach to the political choir” don’t go on these shows; they avoid these shows.

  • Kurtz’ assumption, which he doesn’t seem to want to put completely in view, is that ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN are to the Democratic POV what Faux News is to the Republican POV. There is a good reason Kurtz likely isn’t explicit about that assumption: it is demonstrably wrong, and is offensive to the peers he needs to keep his job in existence.

    But herein lies the damage years and years and Rethug work has caused — the curse of false equlivalence. Prior to Fox, only the most rank partisans really believed their mainstream news was slanted to the left. A broad consensus of Americans believed in Walter Cronkite, for example. Unfortunately, the mere existence of Faux News helped sell the idea that the other stations must be on the “other” end. It was always a lie, and post-Faux even more so as the MSM has moved to the right.

    Sadly, convincing anyone of that – or better yet moving all outlets who claim to be true journalists out of partisanship altogether and into reality – will be maddeningly difficult.

  • It’s not just their media outlets: The GOP candidates right now are focusing their whole mesage at the rightwing base; completely ignoring the general election. Dems, on the other hand, are clearly showing a little more foresight and are looking ahead. So what would be the point of the Republicans going into these other forums, when they clearly only care about winning the primary? Fox News is where their audience is going to be, so that’s where they’re staying.

    I think this is because they’re still subscribing to Rove’s easily debunked theory that the GOP base is enough to support them in the elections. They think it’s enough to get the support of the hardcore, and everything else will fall into place. They don’t believe in moderates or swing-votes. And this attitude will get them trounced next year. Bush was barely able to squeak things out, and that was before he tarnished the entire GOP brand. None of these guys will be so lucky.

  • ‘Since when is Meet the Press a “friendly arena”?’

    When your name is Cheney, and you need lie your ass off about WMD/Iraq/anything control the message…

  • To be fair, Strangely, now that Cheney has lost Larry King, I think he’ll be sticking to Limbaugh for the rest of his reign.

  • Kurtz may have frustrated you, CB, but he sure did reinforce the meme that all the press outlets have a liberal bias and hence Fox News exists to counterbalance that bias.

    Mission Accomplished, indeed!

  • The quoted report and the blog entry both seem to forget that Ask Mitt Anything has been willing to be confronted on national TV about things the other candidates won’t touch. Perhpas Rudy and Newt and others ought to volunteer to have Mike Wallace ask them if they slept with their wives before they were married.

    • Comments are closed.