Before blogging about last night’s debate in detail, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about Palin’s interview with Katie Couric, since I was too deluged with financial news to be able to do that earlier. You’ll see why that’s important when I blog about the debate. (I only had time to comment on the Biden moment last night.)
I didn’t go into the Palin-Biden debate with lowered expectations based on Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. Katie Couric is to journalism what the Muppet Show’s Swedish Chef is to Swedish—she does a meaningless mimicry of it to great effect.
I didn’t watch the interview until a couple of days after it had aired because I knew what to expect from Couric, who has never been a good reporter, or, rather, if she ever were a good reporter she has long since forgotten what that is about. For a very long time, Couric has seen herself as a show host and I suppose that is how she justifies asking questions that are laughably broad, always a bad practice, but particularly so when one is dealing with a relatively inexperienced interviewee. Overly-broad questions give the interviewee millions of options for tangents, which will inevitably make them look silly. Couric has become spoiled in her position; the people she interviews are almost always so high-profile that they are old hands at broad-audience interviews and know the game as well as Couric does. The rest of us, down here in the trenches of Main Street journalism, have to do a lot of interviews with people who aren’t used to the media glare, and we know the importance, indeed the fairness, of specificity. Palin has done lots of TV interviews in Alaska, as governor, no doubt, which would put her in the position of talking about things that need little preamble—Alaskans can be relied upon to know about Alaska—but that is a far cry from talking to Couric on national network TV. The role of a reporter is to get to the truth, to help reveal someone as they really are. That isn’t accomplished by putting your interviewee on the defensive. Couric made it clear in her demeanor from the beginning that she thought herself amply more sophisticated than Palin and she made sure to get this across. For those of us who have watched Couric for lo these many years, it is always a wondrous thing that someone who has been in the profession so long could know so little about how it is practiced in a fair and balanced manner. When it comes to interviewing, the idea is to put your interviewee at ease, whether that interviewee is Iranian President Ahmadinejad or the Pope, so that they will open up and give the public a chance to get to know them and the very best way to do that is by asking specific questions.
“You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience, what did you mean by that?” is a question you could drive a truck through. Why not ask “Russia is known to be supportive of Iran’s nuclear program. What, if anything, can the United States do to impress upon Russia the danger of this approach? Is it a dangerous approach? Or, is that something we should do?” Couric stays away from specifics because she honestly doesn’t know the specifics. As it was, Palin didn’t do a terrible job answering the Russia question however much Couric’s facial expressions may have convinced you otherwise. Palin is in fact the governor of the only state in the nation that borders two foreign countries. She’s very aware of maritime borders and air space, something that some of our former presidents knew nothing about much to their detriment. At a time when the role and meaning of borders is of paramount importance around the world, this is a significant piece of experience.
Couric was specific only in asking Palin about two things: the morning-after pill, and which newspapers or magazines she regularly reads. Regarding the morning-after pill, you and I and everyone else knew how Palin would answer. No news there. Regarding the newspapers and magazines, this was a question I have never heard any other politician asked. They’re usually asked about books. The question was a minefield. If I am running for office and I say that I regularly read the Washington Post and I fail to mention the New York Times, then I have carelessly created enmity for myself with the Times. There was no way to win. When’s the last time anyone asked George Bush which newspapers he reads? Moreover, Couric had to be aware of the media beating that Palin had taken in the weeks leading up to their interview, a set of circumstances that placed Palin at a disadvantage going into her talk with Couric. When you’re Katie Couric, one would hope, you’d be aware enough of your own power and feel secure enough in it, that you do not feel the need to boost your profile at the expense of your interviewee by setting aside the rules of engagement and sitting there with the ultimate Sorority Suzy b*tch look on your face—that’s not a sexist remark, I’d say the same thing about a male reporter but it’s Couric’s trademarked look. (Couric is a sorority girl, the product of the Greek system, a system specifically designed to keep power and money within a particular community.)
Palin doesn’t seem to have a hostile relationship with the media in her home state. Maybe that’s because reporters there are still reporters, having failed to ride the escalator to stardom that would allow them to peer down on their interview subjects.
Couric is an old and disappointing story. That may be because she never had to be a decent reporter. She was given a plum job early on which she clearly saw as a reward for her way of doing things. Couric’s ascendancy marked the beginning of the era that mixed entertainment with news in a way that would make the two indistinguishable from one another, a development that has grossly damaged the ability of the American people to make informed choices. Dan Rather was right.