The unexpected beauty of a reporter calling b.s.

January 18, 2008

One has to assume that it’s tough being a campaign reporter for a major news outlet, especially for a wire service like the Associated Press. The hours are ridiculous, the travel is constant, the deadlines are tight, and not incidentally, they have to listen to presidential candidates repeat quite a bit of nonsense on a daily basis.

Once in a great while, not surprisingly, a reporter just can’t take it anymore.

Holding a news conference in front of the pen rack of a Columbia Staples store, Romney wanted to tout his “strategy for a stronger economy.”

Answering what reporters later called a routine question, Romney took a veiled shot at Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has jumped to a lead in Palmetto State polls.

“I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign,” Romney said. “I don’t have lobbyists that are tied to my–”

Glen Johnson, an Associated Press reporter who was sitting on the floor as he typed on his laptop computer, interrupted to point out that Ron Kaufman, one of Romney’s top advisers, is a lobbyist. “That’s not true, governor!” Johnson interjected.

As Keith Olbermann explained, “It’s rare for a presidential candidate to be interrupted and criticized to his face; rarer still to have it come from a member of the mainstream media; and rarest of all, to see that candidate resume the battle while cameras roll.” And yet, that’s exactly what happened.

Lest there be any confusion, Glen Johnson is not just some schmoe — he’s “a highly respected AP reporter and the closest thing to the senior man on the Romney beat.”

And as of yesterday, he’s heard Romney dissemble one too many times.

The entire video is online, and is certainly worth watching, if only because this kind of exchange simply never happens. Romney made a bogus claim about the role of lobbyists in his campaign; Johnson called him on it immediately; and Romney proceeded to debate Johnson on the meaning of the phrase “my campaign.”

Drama aside, Johnson let the facts speak for themselves in print.

Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he could govern in the country’s best interest because “I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign.” But Washington insiders are on his senior staff and registered lobbyists are top advisors.

One advisor, Ron Kaufman, chairman of Washington-based Dutko Worldwide, regularly sits across the aisle from Romney on his campaign plane, participates in debate strategy sessions and last week accompanied Romney to a lunch in Myrtle Beach, S.C., with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Another advisor, former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), is chairman of Romney’s policy committee. He also is chief executive of Clark & Weinstock, and his corporate biography says he “provides strategic advice to institutions with matters before the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.”

A third advisor, former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), who was at Romney’s victory party in Michigan on Tuesday, is co-chairman of Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations and also is a registered lobbyist, according to federal records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

“I think it’s time for Washington — Republican and Democrat — to have a leader who will fight to make sure we resolve the issues rather than continuously look for partisan opportunity for score-settling and for opportunities to link closer to lobbyists,” Romney said during a news conference.

Now, in context, Romney was going after John McCain’s lobbyists ties — and this is, to be sure, fertile ground. McCain’s criticism of “special interest lobbyists” is shamelessly hypocritical and misleading.

But Romney took his pitch too far and got called on it. Afterwards, a Romney aide chastised Johnson for being “unprofessional.” I’m not so sure — if more reporters confronted candidates when they lie, candidates might tell the truth more often.

Only in the Republican States of America is a journalist striving to get to the truth, what I would consider the very essence of the job, “unprofessional.”

Any bets the Romney campaign is all over AP to get him removed from their beat claiming he can no longer be unbiased?

  • “But Romney took his pitch too far and got called on it. Afterwards, a Romney aide chastised Johnson for being “unprofessional.” I’m not so sure — if more reporters confronted candidates when they lie, candidates might tell the truth more often.”

    good for johnson! other reporters – pay attention!!!!

    and shame on the aide who chastised johnson. unprofessional?? what johnson did was just the opposite!

  • Afterwards, a Romney aide chastised Johnson for being “unprofessional.”

    The sense of entitlement that conveys is enough that had it been me I’d have punched the little pissant (more than once if possible) and told my boss that was my letter of resignation.

  • Well, it’s “unprofessional” by our current media standards, i.e. stenography.

    Nice to see there’s at least one actual journalist still out there. Hopefully this catches on. They do have a herd mentality, maybe they’ll take cues from him.

  • Uh, Mittens. The relationship between the anointed ones and the MSM should never be on the same level as most sports reporting.

  • Interesting that Romney defended himself by pointing out that Kaufman isn’t paid. This really just makes it worse: he’s not there to make money working for Romney, he’s there to make money by being close to Romney.

  • Zeitgeist has a good point. But the optimistic view is that this could start a trend – journalists who actually do their jobs.

    Teamed with Chris Matthews’ forced semi-apology and the scolding that Tom Brokaw gave the press for their horrid campaign coverage, maybe something good is happening. Let’s hope so.

    (Sometimes my cynicism falls away and a bit of my youthful optimism shows through…)

  • Apparently Romney is super unavailable to the press, leaving reporters who cover him to get a little desperate when it comes to trying to get some answers from him. Could this be one of the reasons so many of the stories about him are negative? Hillary also has frosty relations with the press (with some good reason), and the stories about her trend negative, too. McCain, who’s as open to the press as they come, could take a dump on stage and the media would call it chocolate cake. As someone not involved in politics, I’m confused why candidates don’t see this and find ways to accommodate the media more. I assume with Romney it’s because he’s actually a robot and more access might make things worse. Hillary’s supposed to be so great in more intimate settings. What’s her deal?

  • Unprofessional = not playing the game.

    May this incident of actual reporting infect the rest of the pack and inoculate the White House Press Corps to say the same type of retorts to Dana Perino, Tony Fratto and any other bozo the White House puts on the podium.

  • “Hillary’s supposed to be so great in more intimate settings. What’s her deal?”

    Did you have at least a casual interest in politics from, say, 1992 through the present?

    Have you had the opportunity to watch folks like Chris Matthews any time over the past few years?

  • If a schmoe yells out exactly the same words, does anybody hear it?

    Not to be disrespectful of the hero du jour, but anyone highly respected within the MSM can’t be all that great. Is this just a ‘stopped clock’ circumstance.

  • Yeah, I don’t think in any of the United States of America is what Johnson did considered unprofessional.

    The Mitt Romney aide must be a little nazi.

  • Unprofessional? Johnson should be an example to all students of journalism. It’s about time reporters acted like reporters instead of kissing up to every source and worrying about alienating them by asking ‘tough’ questions.

  • Bubba:

    I said I understand why she’s wary of the press. I was only wondering if she might be able to improve some of the coverage by not freezing out the media who follow her campaign. We’ve seen time and again how reporters get to identify with candidates on campaigns, especially the ones who come back on the plane. Could it work for Hillary?

  • Then, if you know the history, you should understand that the vestigial media has already set its narrative regarding Clinton, set it years ago, and is unwilling to change such narrative no matter what she has tried to do. It does not matter what efforts she makes, regardless of the topic at hand–the media just can’t help itself. Clinton has been pummeled ad nauseum for over 15 years, some fairly but most unfairly. And you have no doubt, then, seen her small efforts of outreach towards the media recently, which are then mocked immediately by the media (as well as a number of commentators here). The narrative is set. No matter what she does, how friendly she becomes, she will be mocked by the media. Her efforts will be and are turned against her for more mocking.

  • Or as CalD said in a prior thread:

    “Matthews. That old queen. But in his case it’s not just a matter of simple misogyny meets man-love. Clinton bashing is what really launched his show back in the 90s and it seems to remain his spiritual center. So there’s probably a Pavlovian response there to the very mention of the name.”

  • Once upon a time, it was considered unprofessional if a reporter DIDN’T call someone on their B.S. if it were so apparent.

    That Romney aide is more than welcome, at any time, to kiss my ass.

    Then again, since he’s a Republican, he’d probably jump at the opportunity.

  • I guess America is a combination of two bizarro countries – one country populated by readers of this blog who think journalists should actually point out when candidates lie. The other country is inhabited by people like those in the room with Romney – if you see the video, it’s not just Romney’s aide, even some random old lady goes off and attacks the journalist.

  • There can only be one valid response, after watching the Hissy-Mitt link:

    “I love the smell of freshly-napalmed ReThug in the morning….

  • I don’t think it was unprofessional for the reporter to ask the things that he did. But it seems that you all are kind of running a little too far with the ball. Romney said that Lobbyists were not running his campaign. Does the fact that there are these three lobbyists involved in his campaign prove him wrong? It seems a prudent person (and I like to think that I am) would require a little more information about what role the individuals are playing in the campaign. This article, and the exchange between Romney and Johnson leaves that unclear.

  • Clinton, like most politicians, doesn’t get half the grief she derserves from the media. Not because she’s a woman but because like most politicians she plays fast and loose with the truth.

    The media, most often doesn’t do their job – not when the above mentioned incident is the anomoly rather than the rule.

    So-called journalists like Matthews are hacks of the worst order and really have no business being in the position they are in. Obfuscating politicians also have no business being in the position they are in.

    Neither deserve our respect, support, or attention.

    Scoundrels reported on by fools.

    We are the ones who are ultimately the victims.

  • Maybe the press will wake from the dead.
    Maybe they will start understanding that a confrontation like this will sell to the public.
    And just maybe the candidates will realize the same and try and avoid the whole ‘dubious claim’ press.

    If not, at least Mittens was exposed, and this one talking point will never be repeated. Ditto for McCain.

  • “Maybe the press will wake from the dead. Maybe they will start understanding that a confrontation like this will sell to the public.”

    I am sure that once there is a Dem in the White House the press will find its ‘bearings’…

  • Is there a way to send a thank you to this reporter, I mean, someone doing their job. That is just awesome. I loved the “don’t be argumentative with the candidate”.

  • I agree and so would most of the public who want honesty in these campaigns and stand against hypocrisy.
    Johnson was being extremely “professional”. This is how the press used to act. Now they just act like stenographers taking dictation. Most journalists who are not out for ‘stardom’ are probably just as sick of acting compliant as we are of watching them act that way. Just saying…

  • My immediate and joyful reaction was quickly replaced by the soul crushing realization that it’s actually news when a reporter does their job.

  • bubba @24,

    Absolutely right. Its hard not to get angry just thinking about it; of course, thinking about it means thinking about a Dem being President in 2009, which makes me smile.

  • The AP jerk wasn’t reporting the news, he was attempting to make the news. Romney’s statement was accurate. A professional journalist would have asked an appropriate follow-up to make his point and get a clarrification. He didn’t he was playing self-serving games. Want to bet he is a lib Demo with an agenda? Meanwhile, Obama is harnessing the racist black vote, Hillary is pursuing the sexist female vote, and Edwards will get the vote of the economically envious.Obama would sell our security for a vote, Edwards would sell our economy for a vote and Hillary would sell anything for a vote. Obama fans seem to believe that making the wrong foreign policy statements over and over constitutes experience. Hillary’s defense experience was defending her guilty husband. Edwards has not clue and is part of that “toss Iraq to the wolves” hoping that will stop the terrorists.

  • I just read an article on this exact same event where the dozen or so comments were UNANIMOUS in support of Mitt’s handling of the situation. Ever wonder why people can see the EXACT SAME CLIP and come to completely opposite conclusions? Some find Romney to be coolheaded and adept at clarifying his intended meeting and the role lobbyists have in his campaign while others see him as angry and evasive?

    Well, I saw an interesting article the other day that may be related. It answers why Mitt is stuck with the label flip-flopper depsite that his competitors have changed their positions just as much. Have a look: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases/2008/1/18/vanderbilt-poll-explains-why-romneys-flip-flopper-label-sticks-political-scientist-says-anti-mormon-bias-finds-cover

  • V Racer really needs to understand that commencing a comment with an abusive ad hominem (“the AP jerk”) is a really really good way to ensure that nobody will take your bloviations seriously. the rest of the comment is no better – a stew of ad hominem rantings. what a waste of bandwidth.

    • Comments are closed.