The press has been making news on the campaign this week, as all of the
candidates, most notably Sarah Palin, have been appearing in television
interviews. Personally, I became interested in an interview which
began to be aired the week before, Bill O'Reilly's talk with Barack
Obama. While I haven't yet seen the word 'bias' in a description of
it, the various responses to the interview online demonstrate how
deeply the perception of bias--indeed, the simple perception of what
happened--is subjective. Even looking at the writing of people with
similar political opinions, it seems impossible to find a single idea
of what happened in half an hour of television.
I'd recommend watching the interview, which I liked a great deal, but it isn't really necessary to watch it in order to understand the response--which is, indeed, perhaps the most interesting point about that response.
Part 1----Foreign Policy:
Part 2----Economy & Taxation:
Part 3----Rev. Wright &c.:
Part 4----Energy:
Debate arose after the first segment was aired as to whether O'Reilly had treated the candidate fairly. Some argued that he had been disrespectful, interrupting and belittling him, while others described the same behaviour as "asking tough questions." But this disagreement rested on a more fundamental question, mostly assumed by bloggers: whether Obama had come out of the interview well. To some, the question seemed to be who had won. This did not follow a simple left/right divide--the liberal blog Crooks and Liars seemed to be offering an excuse for Obama, suggesting that O'Reilly had used dishonest tricks to make Obama "look weak next to his [O'Reilly's] huge ego." Many of these had suggested that Obama should not have taken the interview, as it would be impossible for him to get a fair hearing in the hostile setting of "The No-Spin Zone." A blogger named Steve Young didn't wait to see the interview, but published a mocking piece about six hours before it aired purporting to be a leaked transcript of the interview. He portrayed as an incompetent and egotistic attack dog; this piece was copied and linked to by the well-established, and relatively mainstream, Huffington Post, a liberal news accumulator.
Bloggers on another major liberal website, the Daily Kos, saw the interview entirely differently. They agreed that Obama had come out looking well, and that by and large O'Reilly had treated him fairly. The author of the longest piece, which described each of the interview's four sections in detail, thought O'Reilly had tried to shout Obama down at times, but gradually given up; another writer described O'Reilly as having "behaved himself," and even appeared to suspect that O'Reilly is a convert.
The O'Reilly interview was a fairly simple event--a single conversation between two men whose politics are widely known. Given that even people who agree in their support of Obama were divided on the simple question of whether it had portrayed him in a positive light, let alone whether it had been conducted fairly, leads me to a suspicion of online charges of bias. If there isn't a clear answer as to whether or not Bill O'Reilly made Barack Obama look bad, I can't see any hope in judging whether or not a story purporting to be hard news was trying to make a candidate look bad. Many--and I think the Crooks and Liars commentary is the real offender here--simply set out to defend their candidate without considering, it seems, whether he even needs defending. It is strange that this commentator decided to do so; even O'Reilly, according to comments quoted by Ben Smith on the Politico thought he had made a good showing. "On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious... I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy, that he wants the best for all Americans." It was, however, also possible for a right-wing commentator to think Obama had failed in the interview (admittedly, it is entirely possible that by describing this source as right-wing I am revealing my own adherence to this perceptual framework; he doesn't say so explicitly, but I deduce it from his sympathy with O'Reilly and negative view of Obama's performance), as with this blog which explains how O'Reilly trapped Obama into contradicting himself--which, as noted above O'Reilly didn't seem to think he had done.
The most adulatory of the Daily Kos writers appears to have been equally inclined to see what he wanted to see. Describing O'Reilly's commentary on the interview, he wrote "at one point you'll see he praises Obama for how well prepared he was for the interview. Bill was really impressed that Barack knew things about him personally, about his story. Barack had taken the time (while campaigning for POTUS) to learn about him," using an acronym for President of the United States. Watching the clip, this is plainly a bad summary. O'Reilly says in fact that Obama had been well prepared, describing him as polished and well prepped--comments which cut both ways, making the candidate appear false or artificial, and quite possibly an effort to explain away what O'Reilly had conceded was a good performance in the interview. And, indeed, contrary to the blogger's summary, when O'Reilly was immediately afterward asked if he liked Obama, he answered noncommittally, saying he had only spent half an hour with him.
---------------------
While it's a departure from the topic of online media criticism, I should like to take the opportunity to write a little about my own view of the O'Reilly interview, which I thought excellent. It was a model piece of transparent journalism. While O'Reilly very clearly did express his own views in interview, arguing with Obama at points and at other times conceding that they agreed--either of which would be very much a violation of the traditional canons of journalism--the result was extremely informative about Obama. Comparing it with a few other interviews I've watched this week--George Stephanopoulos's interview with Obama and Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (I shan't bother to include a link, as I'm sure the reader has seen it), both of which were conducted with traditional methods, and Keith Olbermann's interview with Obama, which was probably more opinionated than O'Reilly's, and so favorable that most of the online reports I've seen about it included jokes suggesting that Olbermann was sexually interested in the candidate--O'Reilly's had far and away the most that was new. Almost everything Palin and Obama said in the other interviews seemed like a prepared talking point. By and large, I suspect they were unhelpful to a voter trying to form an opinion of the candidates--while both interviews included a few embarrassing moments for the candidates, some real and some artificial, both finished the interview without having definitely expressed any opinion more controversial than that government waste is bad and a solid support for apple pie, motherhood, and the flag. With O'Reilly, I think Obama was drawn far enough into argument about policy to make statements with which it was possible to disagree; it helped to give a sense of what he might do differently from any other person elected president.
Strangely, Gibson's interview, although conducted from a neutral standpoint, seemed designed to provide fodder for partisan debate. He asked a number of questions, most famously the one about the Bush Doctrine, which had little potential interest other than to provoke gaffes, while O'Reilly, despite cutting his interviewee off during answers, was more inclined to follow the topics on which Obama seemed to have something to say.
In all, I would argue that O'Reilly's "transparent" interview accomplished much better the ends of traditional coverage. It was more interesting not because the interviewer expressed his own opinions, but because his doing so provoked the subject to provide better explanations of his. He allowed the candidate to express himself as fully as seems possible within the short time allotted to the segment. On reflection, this doesn't seem surprising--the traditional style of "tough questioning" allows the interviewer to challenge the subject only when he appears to have said something factually inaccurate, which leads ultimately to discussion about whether a particular assertion made in support of an argument was an error or a gaffe; the direct challenge to an idea which an interviewer with explicit political views can make leads his subject to address the whole issue in response. Entirely laying aside questions of party politics, it may simply be a stylistically superior way to approach an interview. O'Reilly's interview with Obama certainly did attract an audience--6.6 million viewers, the show's second-highest rating ever, for the first segment when it was competing with the Republican National Convention, according to TV Week and then 4.6 million when it competed with another Obama interview on MSNBC--so perhaps it points the way forward for future political interviews?
Part 1----Foreign Policy:
Part 2----Economy & Taxation:
Part 3----Rev. Wright &c.:
Part 4----Energy:
Debate arose after the first segment was aired as to whether O'Reilly had treated the candidate fairly. Some argued that he had been disrespectful, interrupting and belittling him, while others described the same behaviour as "asking tough questions." But this disagreement rested on a more fundamental question, mostly assumed by bloggers: whether Obama had come out of the interview well. To some, the question seemed to be who had won. This did not follow a simple left/right divide--the liberal blog Crooks and Liars seemed to be offering an excuse for Obama, suggesting that O'Reilly had used dishonest tricks to make Obama "look weak next to his [O'Reilly's] huge ego." Many of these had suggested that Obama should not have taken the interview, as it would be impossible for him to get a fair hearing in the hostile setting of "The No-Spin Zone." A blogger named Steve Young didn't wait to see the interview, but published a mocking piece about six hours before it aired purporting to be a leaked transcript of the interview. He portrayed as an incompetent and egotistic attack dog; this piece was copied and linked to by the well-established, and relatively mainstream, Huffington Post, a liberal news accumulator.
Bloggers on another major liberal website, the Daily Kos, saw the interview entirely differently. They agreed that Obama had come out looking well, and that by and large O'Reilly had treated him fairly. The author of the longest piece, which described each of the interview's four sections in detail, thought O'Reilly had tried to shout Obama down at times, but gradually given up; another writer described O'Reilly as having "behaved himself," and even appeared to suspect that O'Reilly is a convert.
The O'Reilly interview was a fairly simple event--a single conversation between two men whose politics are widely known. Given that even people who agree in their support of Obama were divided on the simple question of whether it had portrayed him in a positive light, let alone whether it had been conducted fairly, leads me to a suspicion of online charges of bias. If there isn't a clear answer as to whether or not Bill O'Reilly made Barack Obama look bad, I can't see any hope in judging whether or not a story purporting to be hard news was trying to make a candidate look bad. Many--and I think the Crooks and Liars commentary is the real offender here--simply set out to defend their candidate without considering, it seems, whether he even needs defending. It is strange that this commentator decided to do so; even O'Reilly, according to comments quoted by Ben Smith on the Politico thought he had made a good showing. "On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious... I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy, that he wants the best for all Americans." It was, however, also possible for a right-wing commentator to think Obama had failed in the interview (admittedly, it is entirely possible that by describing this source as right-wing I am revealing my own adherence to this perceptual framework; he doesn't say so explicitly, but I deduce it from his sympathy with O'Reilly and negative view of Obama's performance), as with this blog which explains how O'Reilly trapped Obama into contradicting himself--which, as noted above O'Reilly didn't seem to think he had done.
The most adulatory of the Daily Kos writers appears to have been equally inclined to see what he wanted to see. Describing O'Reilly's commentary on the interview, he wrote "at one point you'll see he praises Obama for how well prepared he was for the interview. Bill was really impressed that Barack knew things about him personally, about his story. Barack had taken the time (while campaigning for POTUS) to learn about him," using an acronym for President of the United States. Watching the clip, this is plainly a bad summary. O'Reilly says in fact that Obama had been well prepared, describing him as polished and well prepped--comments which cut both ways, making the candidate appear false or artificial, and quite possibly an effort to explain away what O'Reilly had conceded was a good performance in the interview. And, indeed, contrary to the blogger's summary, when O'Reilly was immediately afterward asked if he liked Obama, he answered noncommittally, saying he had only spent half an hour with him.
---------------------
While it's a departure from the topic of online media criticism, I should like to take the opportunity to write a little about my own view of the O'Reilly interview, which I thought excellent. It was a model piece of transparent journalism. While O'Reilly very clearly did express his own views in interview, arguing with Obama at points and at other times conceding that they agreed--either of which would be very much a violation of the traditional canons of journalism--the result was extremely informative about Obama. Comparing it with a few other interviews I've watched this week--George Stephanopoulos's interview with Obama and Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin (I shan't bother to include a link, as I'm sure the reader has seen it), both of which were conducted with traditional methods, and Keith Olbermann's interview with Obama, which was probably more opinionated than O'Reilly's, and so favorable that most of the online reports I've seen about it included jokes suggesting that Olbermann was sexually interested in the candidate--O'Reilly's had far and away the most that was new. Almost everything Palin and Obama said in the other interviews seemed like a prepared talking point. By and large, I suspect they were unhelpful to a voter trying to form an opinion of the candidates--while both interviews included a few embarrassing moments for the candidates, some real and some artificial, both finished the interview without having definitely expressed any opinion more controversial than that government waste is bad and a solid support for apple pie, motherhood, and the flag. With O'Reilly, I think Obama was drawn far enough into argument about policy to make statements with which it was possible to disagree; it helped to give a sense of what he might do differently from any other person elected president.
Strangely, Gibson's interview, although conducted from a neutral standpoint, seemed designed to provide fodder for partisan debate. He asked a number of questions, most famously the one about the Bush Doctrine, which had little potential interest other than to provoke gaffes, while O'Reilly, despite cutting his interviewee off during answers, was more inclined to follow the topics on which Obama seemed to have something to say.
In all, I would argue that O'Reilly's "transparent" interview accomplished much better the ends of traditional coverage. It was more interesting not because the interviewer expressed his own opinions, but because his doing so provoked the subject to provide better explanations of his. He allowed the candidate to express himself as fully as seems possible within the short time allotted to the segment. On reflection, this doesn't seem surprising--the traditional style of "tough questioning" allows the interviewer to challenge the subject only when he appears to have said something factually inaccurate, which leads ultimately to discussion about whether a particular assertion made in support of an argument was an error or a gaffe; the direct challenge to an idea which an interviewer with explicit political views can make leads his subject to address the whole issue in response. Entirely laying aside questions of party politics, it may simply be a stylistically superior way to approach an interview. O'Reilly's interview with Obama certainly did attract an audience--6.6 million viewers, the show's second-highest rating ever, for the first segment when it was competing with the Republican National Convention, according to TV Week and then 4.6 million when it competed with another Obama interview on MSNBC--so perhaps it points the way forward for future political interviews?
Leave a comment