Do Deborah Solomon's interviews in the New York Times Magazine make anyone else uncomfortable? (She does the "Questions for..." feature that runs near the front.) They're exceptionally harsh -- to the point that I think of British political culture, where journalists are far more confrontational than here. I want a more aggressive press corps, but I still believe that interview subjects deserve respect, and some of her questions are basically personal attacks.
Here's a sample from her interview with Jeff Gannon/Guckert:
SOLOMON: Should I call you Jim Guckert or Jeff Gannon?
GANNON: My Amex card still comes in the name of James Guckert, but I want to be called Jeff Gannon. That is who I am.
SOLOMON: Or rather it is the pseudonym under which you gained access to White House press briefings for two years, until your identity was revealed. Why do you think they let you in?
GANNON: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the criteria they use. I asked to be let in, and they allowed me to come. I was very fond of all the people in the press office. They treated me well. They probably treated me better than I deserved.
SOLOMON: Are you suggesting that Bobby Eberle, the Republican operative who hired you to shill for his Gopusa under the guise of his Talon News service, has special access at the White House?
GANNON: I just don't know the answer to that question.
SOLOMON: Scott McClellan, the press secretary to President Bush, called on you and allowed you to ask questions on a nearly daily basis. What, exactly, is your relationship with him?
GANNON: I was just another guy in the press room. Did I try to curry favor with him? Sure. When he got married, I left a wedding card for him in the press office. People are saying this proves there is some link. But as Einstein said, "Sometimes a wedding card is just a wedding card.''
SOLOMON: You mean like "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar''? That wasn't Einstein. That was Freud.
GANNON: Oh, Freud. O.K. I got my old Jewish men confused.
SOLOMON: You should learn the difference between them if you want to work in journalism.
Good read.
Did she get around to asking about his rates?
Posted by: chris | March 29, 2005 at 11:58 AM
I just returned from the UK and I have to say I rather enjoy the British press, particularly the way in which they handle the political scene. Nothing and no one is sacrosanct. The press goes a long way to making sure everyone knows that politicians are no better or worse than any lay person. I find this kind of in-your-face honesty refreshing, even if it is sometimes insulting.
Contrast this method with the way the American press refuses to aggressively and honestly pursue issues with any semblance of depth, glad hands politicians, and repeats verbatim relentlessly regurgitated talking points and... your left with a bad taste in your mouth.
Posted by: Paul | March 29, 2005 at 06:51 PM
Yes, I was uncomfortable with this interview. It basically reads like Gene Weingarten's parody interview:
And in the end even that one wasn't funny, it was mean. In this one, Jeff doesn't even try to defend himself, and she has a whole script lined up against him, and doesn't even care what he says. I didn't like it.
Posted by: Noumenon | March 30, 2005 at 12:04 PM
Short take:
Poooor Jeff, James or whatever...
Posted by: sillycanuck | March 31, 2005 at 08:59 AM
What, besides the snarky line about the Marx line, is harsh about that interview exactly?
The rest of the interview is made up of directly relevant questions.
In fact, she let him off rather easily given the documented facts of his story. And there is no follow-up probing of his spun answers.
She called his public advertisments for his personal prostitution services "nude pictures." Nothing about his tax liens, his attendance of a two day republican operative institute, his shell charities and companies, his source of income over his time in D.C., or his other political activities concurrent with his press-release service, his knowledge of the Plame case or the name and time of the beginning of the Iraq war 4 hours before it became public to anyone else.
And this is someone for whom personal attacks were a prime hobby. Find his web-archived posts at FreeRepublic, or look up how he involved himself in the Thune/Daschle race in South Dakota, or read how he claimed Kerry would be the "first gay president" (do you think that was meant as a compliment?), or the Wilson/Plame case. He could certainly dish it out.
And you could see that one snarky line as a comment on his general disregard for accurate quoting, facts or truth, and his lack of any sort of preparation to be sitting in the White House press room. Maybe its a bit mean, but journalism and politics are both competitive fields, and if he wanted to go from the body shop to the WH press room in one fell swoop he should expect to know what he's saying and be accountable for it. She has a point.
Other than Anderson Cooper, the press has avoided any questioning of his version of his story.
When you compare this to the wave of bought-for commentary and the debacle of coverage of the Schiarvo case, the war on terrorism, the war in iraq, or the dismal economic team we have now and how the most ridiculous assertions are taken at face value by today's press, I'd say we could use some more snark.
Posted by: Chris | April 01, 2005 at 10:13 AM
She isn't partisan, and she doesn't pull punches, and her questions are exactly what we want to know. I think her subjects look good by virtue of their agreeing to the interview to begin with. Even Gannon/Guckert doesn't come off too badly, no worse than he deserves.
Posted by: KGB | August 07, 2007 at 02:23 PM
Deborah Solomon is actually a very insecure creature.
Posted by: Amy | November 09, 2008 at 05:21 AM