We talked on Monday about a depressing media display: a four-minute discussion on The Chris Matthews Show about the prosecutor purge scandal with four powerful media figures from leading news outlets, all of whom treated the controversy as a big joke.
Perhaps the low-point of the segment came when Time managing editor Richard Stengel explained his own perspective on the scandal. “I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance,” Stengel said. “That’s not what voters want to see.”
Now, we already know that Stengel’s take on public opinion appears to be misplaced, but his comments about the controversy — and his disinterest in it — caused something of a stir. Time’s Ana Marie Cox, to her credit, took issue with her boss’ on-air comments and sought out a response from Stengel. Demonstrating the kind of transparency and accountability that’s often lacking in major media, Stengel actually responded.
In reading your reaction to my comments on Chris Matthews, I realize that I’ve been caught out speaking as a citizen rather than as editor of Time. Lord knows, the Democrats going after Karl Rove is “interesting” in an objective way for Time and for journalists in general. It’s hard to overstate Rove’s role in this administration and it would certainly create yards of headlines and good copy if the Democrats manage to get some traction.
But as a citizen, I think it’s unfortunate and perhaps short-sighted for Democrats to be perceived as focusing on the past rather than the future. If people see the Democrats as obsessively concerned with settling scores, that’s not good for the Democrats or the country. And I would make the exact same statement about the Republicans if they were in this situation. Meanwhile, the next time I’m on Chris Matthews, I’ll muzzle my citizen’s thoughts.
Now, I give Stengel a lot of credit for replying to questions. He could have very easily said, “I’m the managing editor of the nation’s largest news-weekly. I don’t care about bloggers’ criticism.” But he didn’t, instead choosing to explain himself. That was the right call.
But at the risk of sounding picky, I’m afraid his explanation is flawed.
Dems should avoid “focusing on the past rather than the future”? Generally, that’s not a bad idea, but in this case, the administration launched an unprecedented purge of U.S. Attorneys in December. If congressional Dems launched a series of hearings about unanswered questions about Bush’s Harken energy scandal, I’d agree with Stengel’s sentiment. But this just happened.
His argument brings to mind a similar response I had to David Broder most recent column: what would the media establishment have Dems do? Confronted with evidence of the Bush administration obstructing justice, selectively enforcing the law, and lying about it, what’s the “reasonable” course of action for Congress? Would Stengel and Broder prefer that Dems just overlook the matter? To hold an administration accountable for its conduct is necessarily to look backwards?
Also, I’m having a hard time understanding what Stengel is referring to with the notion that Dems might be “obsessively concerned with settling scores,” by virtue of their interest in the purge scandal. This is a complete misrepresentation of what’s transpired to date. Dems aren’t “obsessed”; they’re asking reasonable questions in response of evidence of wrongdoing. They’re not “settling scores”; if they were, why are so many Republicans asking the same questions Dems are?
Finally, this isn’t so much a criticism as an observation, but Stengel raises a good point about pundits on TV wearing multiple hats. Here was the managing editor of Time announcing his disinterest in the nation’s biggest political scandal. It’s alright, though, because he was “speaking as a citizen.” Well, that’s not quite right — he was introduced and identified for viewers as the editor of Time.
But it points to a frequent problem in today’s media: neutral political reporters at non-partisan news outlets like to go on TV, let their hair down, and share their opinions. As soon as the segment ends, they take their pundit hat off and put their journalist hat back on, and hope the public can make the distinction.
As the Stengel example makes clear, it’s a problematic dynamic.