This blog has previously praised "Airframe", the novel by the late Michael Crichton, as probably the best novel of ideas ever written describing the evils of modern "journalism". Here is (paraphrasing) how Crichton's character accurately described the modern "journalist"--especailly the modern TV "journalist" (advising the protagonist about to be interviewed): "The main ting you have to realize is that these people are NOT INTERESTED in information. The TV host questioning you is NOT INTERESTED in information. The questons are not designed to get INFROMATION. The intent is to use the questions to build the narrative they are constructing. If you try to give them FACTS, on the incorrect assumptioin that they are INTERESTED, you are merely playing into ttheir hands. You need to build your own narrative." (emphasis added, and no attempt at veratim quote, qhich is true of the--accurate--descriptons of statements by Wolf Blitzer and Michelle Bockman that folow).
Case in point: Wolf Blitzer and CNN. Prvious blog articles this week have described the AGENDA behind the questions in the CNN Republican debate.--the "narrative" that CNN and the mainstream media are trying to builld. Part of that narrative is to attack Repubicans with excessive and unfair quetioining on "social issues", even while saying that the public wants Republicans to be concerned only with the MPORTANT issues relating to the economy. This HYPOCRISY (from the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth) has become so obvious that it shoulld be embarrassing to the mainstream media, but they have NO SHAME. The turth is that it is DEMOCRATS and the MAINSTREAM media who are OBSESSED with "social issues', and not Republicans. AP/Yahoo "News" headline last night (beatured, breathless headline and story): "U.N. endorses gay rights for first time." Does this mean that Iran, and maybe other Muslim countries, cannot HANG homosexuals any more? Just asking, as I digress. Wolf Blitzer would continue this theme with Michelle Bockman, trying to assert that homosexual marriage is now IMPORTANT because New York is considering a bill allowing gay marriage in New York (again proving that it is DEMOCRATS and the MAINSTREAM MEIDA who are fiddling with the "social issue' of "gay rights", while ROME (America) BURNS). Yes, I deliberately made a point of seeing Wolf Blitzer's interview with Michelle Bockman--in place of my usual random and very brief "surfing" of CNN--and never has Michael Crichton been proven so right.
Yes, the "social isssue" narrative is a long-standing narrative of CNN and the mainstream media with regard to Republicans, making it obvious to me that Republicans need to COUNTERPUNCH on social issues (mentioning, for example, that homosexual marriage has not been recognized for the HOUSANDS OF YEARS of human history, until the past decade or so, in contrast to polygamy, and then handling the inevitable followup question by sayins: "I will be glad to discuss this further with you, but remember that it is YOU who is obsessed with this being so "important", and not me, when I would prefer talking aoub jobs and the economy"). But this "social issu" scam is not the only narrative at work here. The other narrative--also discussed in earlier blog entries this week--is the attempt to force Republicans to utter "sound bite" criticisms of each other, and to PUT WORDS in their mouths. It is in the pursuit of this narrative that poor, partisan hack Wolf Blitzer proved that he (as well as all of the "journalists" of CNN) is disqualified from being a "journalist". As you read this article, and consider what Wolf Bitzer was interested in, remember what Michale Crichton showed us early in this decade: "These people (Wolf Blitzer and CNN) are NOT INTERESTED in FACTS and INFORMATION;they are only interested in their narrative.."
"Have you stopped beating you wife?' That is a famous example of a cross-examination question that is totally unfair, because it appears to require a "yes" or "no" answer, and yet it CANNOT be answered either "yes" or "no" without admitting you beat your wife The other CROSS-EXAMINATION tecnique for a lawyer is to put the LAWYER'S WORDS in the mouth of the witness, often by MISREPRESENTING what another witness has said. This kind of question is usually phrased: "Do you agree with me that....", or "Do you agree with witness X that...." Even if exact words of witness X are used., the overall context --plus any caveats and clarifying explanations given by witness X--are omitted. You can see what this is. This is ADVOCACY. A lawyer cross-examining is NOT INTRESTED in t FACTS or INFORMATION. He is only intrested in the NARRRATIVE (agenda) he is trying to promote with his questions. NO, this is NOT proper for JOURNNALISTS. Journalists are not supposed to be ADVOCATES, pushing a partisan point of view. They are supposed to be trying to get INFORMATION to their viewers/listeners/readers. Nope. It is not ture that journalists are supposed to be ADVERSARIAL in the ADVOCACY sense with the persons they interview. Note the difference between CHALLENGING what a politician says, and trying to CONTROL what a politician says (like a lawyer does in cross-examination). The lawyer is NOT INTRESTED in "turth", or in giving the witness a chance to give INFORMATIOIN. The lawyer is only interested in pushing his client's point of view--which is the lawyer's point of view, by definition, during the trial. That is the problem with the DISHONEST PARTISAN HACKS of CNN interviewing REPUBICANS (or conservatives). Wolf Blitzre regards himself, in that situation, as an aDVOCATE of the CNN narrative, and that is an EVIL thing for a supposed "neutral" "jurnalist". Yes, Sean Hannity does the same thing of Fox, but Sean Hannity ADMITS HIS AGENDA--making him hosest and CNN dishonest. Wolf Blitzer proceeded to prove himself, again, as a dishonest political hack with one of the worst questions ever asked by a supposed "journalist"--that is, until CNN and the mainstream media set a new, even lower, standard over the next week, the next month, and the next year (thus bringing us about to the end of their life expectancy on the air),.
"Do you agree with Tim Pawlenty that Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts disqualifies him from the Republican nomination.?" Note how ADVOCATE Wolf, uninterested in actual information, COMBINED the two cross-examination techniques of a lawyer described above. "Do you agree with witness X that you have not stopped beating your wifee?" Honest question if you want INFORMATION (which Wolf Blitzer did not): "What do you think of Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts?" Slightly moer pointed, but honest, question: "What weight do you think Repubican primary voters should give to any flaws you see in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan?" Another possible honest question: "What do you think of an individual mandate on a state level instead of a national level? Mitt Romney seems to think it makes a difference." Insstead of an honest question, hoever, Wolf Blitzer asked a dishonest quetion, thereby proving that he is DISQALIFIED from bein an actual "journalist".
What is wrong with the question? "how do I love thee; let me count the ways." (Elizabeth Barrett Browning). First, to answer the question AT ALL "agrees" that Tim Pawlenty actually said that Mitt Romeny is "disqualified" from being the Republican nominee., without any caveats or explanation. That is, dishonest Wolf Blitzer is asking Michelle Bockman to agree with his short CHARACTERIZATION of what Pawlenty said, if she answers the queston at all. Thus, it was impossible for Bockman to answer the questioin. As she stated in answer to another questoion (intended to be the same kind of trap): "I am not here to talk about what other candidates have said. I can onlly state my own positiion.". It is absurd to ay anything else, and Wolf Blitzer knows it. But the CNN NARRATIVE--the mainstream media narrative--is to get repubilcans to call other Republicans names, or call their policies names, so that NO REPUBLICAN ever gets to simply state his or her position. Instead, all any Republican gets to do is answer "trap" qukestions about what other Repubicans have said. As stated, facts and informatioin are NOT the CNN goal. AGENDA is the CNN goal. And no, this is not done to Democrats on the same scale, if at all. It is NEVER done to Barack Obama, in this virulent kind of way, even when he was a cndidate the first time.
Second problem with the question: What does "disqualified" mean? Legally, of course, it is not true. It has to be meant in some figurative sense. The media, INCLUDING CHIRS WALLACE OF FOX NEWS, has asked the similarly absurd question of OTHER Republicans about Sarah Palin-a DISHOENST question (yes, Chris Wallace is a dishonest political hack). Sarah Palin is "qualified" to be President under the U.S. Constitution. What does it MEAN to ask OTHER PEOPLE whether she is "qualified" to be President? Barack Obama had almost NO "qualifications" to be President, becyoud the Constitutonal ones. Was this question routinely asked of OTHER DEMOCRATS during the last election. Nope. That is because theses "journalists" are dishonest, partisan hacks. The words "qulaified" and "disqualified" have NO objective meaning, if objective quualifications are not at issue, and there is absolutelyl no way you can know how some other person meant the word. In other words, there is absollutely no way Michelle Bockman can no what Tim Pawlenty meant, IF he used that word in the way Blitzer put in this question, and it is absurd to ask her about it. Now you can ask Michelle Bockman if SHE believes Romeny is "disqualified" by his Massachusetts health care plan from being the Republican nominee, but there is only one way to answer that. When ZMichelle Bockman refused to take the bait, and answer the oritinal question (instead answering the question she correctly felt SHOULD have been asked, without even saying she was not answering the unfair question), Bockman gave the correct answer: "That is up to the voters. Why is it up to me to talk about whether Romney is "disqualified"? (you MORON, being the implicit assertion which I thik she should have made explicit).
Third problem with the question: Say Bokman says "no"; is she ENDORSING Romney's Massachusetts health care plan? That is the spot Blitzer intended to put her on. And if she is then asked to "explain" her "no answer, or even tries to do it as part of her original answer, she looks STUPID. That is because she has to give something like the analysis I am giving here, in a FEW WORDS. It cannot be done. All you cand do in a few words is OBJECT to the question. Otherwise, you are in the "when did you stop beating your wife" trap. The laternative is simply not to answer the question, and that is what Michelle Bockman did. Conventional wisdom would sugggest she was right to do so, to avoid directly confronting CNN and Blitzer (thereby creating a war conventional wisdom says you can't win, although I think that is becoming more and more incorredt as people have lost all respect for "journalists"). Therefor, Michelle Bockman merely answered the question of what she thinks about the individual mandate, on both a state and national level--the questin Blitzer deliberately did not ask (because he was never interested in actual information).
It gtrs worse. Yes, I know. You might thnk that is impossible in one interview, but this is Wolf Blitzer and CNNThese people are dishonest and loyal to their partisan narrative to their very core. Thus, Blitzer tried to FORCE Michelle Bockman to let him put words in her mouth. First, he said" "So you don't want to anser the question." She properly refused to take that bait, and repeated her answer to the question Blitzer should have asked. Still pushing his narrative, because he is stupid, Blitzer then said: "Well, that is being diplomatic. But I will take that as a "yes". Even a layer might be EMBARRASSED to be that blatant in tring to put words in the mouth of a witness (although I have seen lawyers do it, in my legal career). Mainstream media people have no shame. This is where Michelle Bockman gave her BEST answer: "No, you cannot take my answer as 'yes'. That would be YOU utting words in MY mouth. I gave you my answer, and I used lthe words I meant to use. You cannot take any;ting else from that answer."
Amazingly, Wolf Blitzer then ADMITTED what he was trying to do. Nope. He did not admit it to Michelle Bockman, and apologize (although he should have). Rather, the interview was followed with one of those "panel discussions" correctly noting how WELL Michelle Bockman had done (suggesting that Bockman may have been right to avoid a direct confrontation over the unfair questions). In that panel discussioin, BLITZER noted that he had asked the "tough questions", and yet she had refused to let him ut words in her mouth. This was, in effect, an admission that the questions wee TRAPS, and that Blitzer admired Bockman for failing to fall into the TRAPS. Blitzer almost directly said that Bockman refused to let Blitzer substitute his/CNN's narrative for hers. Yep. Wolf Blitzer admitted the obviious: Wolf Blitzer is disqualified from being a journalist. Victory: Michelle Bockman.
Yes, this blog was again vindicated in what I have been saying for days, weeks, months and years. Repubicans MUST stand up to the mainstream media, and MUST avoid this trap of saying "sound bite" bad things about other Repubicans or conservatives. Focus on Barack Obama, and talk about POLICY. If you want to take shots at other candidates, do so on ISSUES and RECORD--factually comaring our program and record with theirs rather than giving in to the media invited temptation to contribute to the mainstream media narrative ("Oba,meucare", "right wing social engineering", etc.). And NEVER (I mean never) answer a media question asking you to characterize STATEMENTS of other Republicans which you have not directly heard. If YOU want to objet to the statement of another Republican about you (which you should do with extreme caution, do it in a direct challenge yourself. Do NOT do it in answer to a media question characterizing what some other Republican or conservative has said. These people (mainstream media) are NOT your friends. You need to treat them as ADVOCATES for the other side (which they are), and not let them either put words inyour mouth or instigate name calling "sound bites" with other Repubicans. Yes, even on Fox News you should have the same attitude.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, Michelle Bockman did WELL with Wolf Blitzer. For some time now, she has stated what I believe better than any other Republican out there, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin. Why am I not ENDORSING Michelle Bockman.? Well, I am know too much history, and I know how hard it is for a person from the House of Representatives to become President (directly, by election). More importantly, I would like to see more of Michelle Bockman even though I have followed her since well before the 2010 election). She can say things I don't like, and did so in the interview with Wolf Blitzer. I will discuss that iin a future article. Can she avoid being too dogmatic, with too much tunnel vision? Notice I did NOT say "too extreme". That is not the problem I perceive with Michelle Bockman. I think she can become a great candidate, and I am certainly more than realdy to support her. But, as with Herman Cain (were I think the reasons fro my caution have been confirmed), I would like to see Michelle Bockman handle being a REAL candidate for awhile before rendering my final judgment.
P.P.S. Yes, the article on Thursday's numbers on new unemployment claims WILL appear this weekend. I just have not had the time to give it the attention it deserves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment