Essay	Wolf Blitzer, I Have News for You by Murray Levine

I used to believe that it was only the radio talk show hosts who contributed to the debasement of the level of public discourse. After watching the debates allegedly moderated by distinguished print and television journalists, I have now come to the conclusion that establishment commentators such as Wolf Blitzer and his self-styled, self-serving “best political team” are as much to blame as the numerous loudmouths who infest the airwaves. Tim Russert and his panelists and George Stephanapolous and his regulars are indistinguishable in their emphases on the political game to the detriment of critiquing the substance of candidates’ positions.

The journalists emphasize the sporting aspect of the campaign to the exclusion of considering the candidates’ substantive positions. But they also emphasize all the negative campaigning, not to level criticism at those who go negative but to broadcast, in the sense of spreading, the dirt. They do a disservice to democracy and to the public because they fail to educate on the substantive issues and imply that who is up and who is down in the polls is the whole game.

The problem is deeper than that. Ever since CNN’s now retired Bernard Shaw laid Michael Dukakis low by his question about how Dukakis would react if his wife was raped, journalists salivate at the thought they will have a similar effect on a candidate by a question or a “revelation.” Rick Sanchez of CNN gave six minutes to McCain’s 30-second failure to chastise a supporter who called Hillary a “bitch.” Chavez revealed his motive when he said that his story “would be real bad for John McCain.” Fortunately the story died because of its weightlessness. Howard Kurtz of CNN’s Reliable Sources, who allegedly critiques the media, put on a journalist apologist who said Chavez was right to emphasize the story. Kurtz said very little about Blitzer’s abysmal performance as moderator-in-chief of a previous CNN-sponsored political debate. It would be nice if Kurtz were at least a little embarrassed by pretending to critique CNN stories as if he were fearlessly independent, with no conflict of interest.

The problem goes beyond covering politics as if it was a sport. Some journalists work hard to stimulate fights between the candidates, not about their policy positions but about how they speak about each other. I think Wolf Blitzer is an outstanding example of the genre, repeatedly asking questions of the variety “Let’s you and him fight while I hold your coats.” Wolf’s disappointment was palpable that the December 13, CNN-sponsored, Iowa debate was civil. His opening comment after the debate was that there were “no bombshells.” He seemed disappointed that the candidates were polite and addressed each other with respect. His first clip was of Hillary Clinton and he commented that she was taking subtle digs at Obama and Edwards, as if that were the debate’s most newsworthy event.

Blitzer insisted on a prosecutor’s “yes” or “no” answers to complex social questions, a demand that had no other purpose than to put candidates at odds with each other, thus providing a mindless sound-bite. The candidates, who fear offending or alienating these powerful gatekeepers to the mass media, do not respond with an injunction to the television reporter to, in Woody Allen’s immortal words, “commit an impossible obscenity on yourself.” I reveled in the news that President Sarkozy of France walked out on Diane Sawyer of 60 Minutes when she asked about his wife (they had not yet been divorced). I don’t know whether Sawyer had violated some explicit agreement about what the interview was to cover, or whether Sarkozy quickly realized that responding to such an irrelevance was beneath his dignity. I don’t often agree with Vice President Cheney, but I applauded when he slapped Wolf down and refused to make a political comment that would put Cheney at odds with the religious right on the occasion of his granddaughter’s birth to a lesbian couple. Would that more politicians would chastise journalists who step out of their proper roles and become what in Yiddish is called a “koch leffel”—a cooking spoon that stirs the pot.

Wolf: News is not entertainment. A political forum is not the Jerry Springer Show, despite your fondest fantasies of how you would like to transform the debates.

Murray Levine is the author of numerous articles and books in psychology and in psychology and law. A retired professor of psychology, he has time to destroy his fine mind by watching the nonsense on TV.