National Reporters Should Learn to Be a Little Bit Ruder


I was pretty unimpressed with the dueling 60 Minutes interviews with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama last night. Just for starters, any time a reporter vaguely summarizes what “your opponent” says and then asks, “How do you respond to that” — well, that deserves an immediate demotion to AA ball. It’s ridiculously amateurish. And yet, that was Steve Kroft’s very first question to Obama.

But I guess you could write that off as a pet peeve of mine. So instead let’s take a look at a line of questioning that Scott Pelley used on Romney. This comes after he’s noted that Romney is eager to explain his tax rate cuts in detail, but not so eager to explain which tax deductions he wants to eliminate to make up for the cuts:

Pelley: You’re asking the American people to hire you as president of the United States. They’d like to hear some specifics.

Romney: Well, I can tell them specifically what my policy looks like. I will not raise taxes on middle income folks. I will not lower the share of taxes paid by high income individuals. And I will make sure that we bring down rates, we limit deductions and exemptions so we can keep the progressivity in the code, and we encourage growth in jobs.

Pelley: And the devil’s in the details, though. What are we talking about, the mortgage deduction, the charitable deduction?

Romney: The devil’s in the details. The angel is in the policy, which is creating more jobs.

Pelley: You have heard the criticism, I’m sure, that your campaign can be vague about some things. And I wonder if this isn’t precisely one of those things?

Pelley’s heart is in the right place, but come on. Romney has given this answer before. Pelley knew he was going to say this. So why not decide beforehand to get a little tougher? At the very least, suggest that Romney claims to be a leader, and the public has a right to know their leaders’ preferences even if no one expects them to get 100 percent of what they ask for. Or, since you know that Romney won’t say what he will ask for, try a series of questions that makes it plain what’s on the table. Maybe something like this:

Pelley: Are there any deductions that you’re not willing to consider eliminating? For example the home mortgage deduction?

Romney: Well, I’d want to consult with Congress….

Pelley: How about the charitable deduction? Is that off the table?

Romney: Nothing is off the table, Scott, but….

Pelley: Would you be willing to consider eliminating the tax exemption for health care benefits?

Romney: I’m willing to consider anything, but I don’t have a set list in mind….

Pelley: Retirement income? State tax deductions? Are you open to eliminating any of these?

I understand that Romney’s actual answers would be longer and more filibusterish than I’ve suggested, but there’s no law that says a reporter can’t interrupt if a candidate isn’t being responsive. One way or another, though, if you already know that Romney isn’t going to tell you what he will do, maybe you should at least try to get him on the record about what he won’t do. Would pressing him on deduction after deduction be a little bit rude? A little bit aggressive? Sure. But isn’t that what a 60 Minutes reporter should be?

And before anyone asks, yes, this goes for the interview with Obama too. Kroft challenged Obama in some of the right general areas, but his questions were so broad and so timidly phrased that Obama didn’t even have to try hard to evade them. We learned almost nothing from either of these interviews.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.