44 Comments - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:51 am: Use them. Ensure that the interviewer knows your source. The interviewer should appreciate an opportunity to address a line of attack his political opposition is using. It is better to start fielding questions coming directly from your political opponent and rebutting them, then it is to hope you can change the subject and ignore them. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:54 am: Not a direct answer, but personally, I think the questions often say more than the potential responses. Furthermore, I see view them as being a bit “manipulative” and therefore risky. - just sayin' - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:55 am: Ignore them. Only a chump would do the bidding of a serial liar like Mark Kirk and of his henchmen at the IL GOP. After a person has lied so much, he forfeits any expectation that he be taken seriously. Kirk crossed that line a long time ago. Kirk really is like the boy who cried wolf and now he gets eaten because no one is listening. - corvax - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:59 am: If used, they need editing, not just ID of source. They’re either bad questions (”new reports of criminals” is based on nothing) or based on false premises (Alexi was not responsible for the market collapse that cost Bright Start $ but improved that program materially). i can’t imagine that a good reporter needs or would rely on that partisan “help”. - South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:00 pm: I would say take a middle course. Read them, and consider the validity/newsworthiness of some of the questions, ignoring the ones that are simply campaign sound bites. Revise the questions as necessary to make them legitimate but tough questions that should be asked and answered. - Northsider - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:00 pm: Ignore them. I was a reporter and covered plenty of races, local, state, and federal. My job was NOT to be either party’s professional shill, which is all any reporter who uses planted questions is. I would have been too professionally embarrassed had I not already developed my own list of questions based upon a candidate’s history, record; feedback from readers, etc. Luckily, most of the editors I had demanded nothing less, too. But that takes hard work — something too few reporters, at all levels of the news media, seem interested in acknowledging, much less doing. Hence the LaRouchies (1986) and Scott Lee Cohens (2010) of our political world. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:04 pm: Okay, I’m not answering the question directly as Rich asked it, but my take on it is it usually angers the reporters who find the whole thing annoying and condescending. Any good reporter should be able to ask the right questions–sending out the press releases with suggested questions assumes they cannot. A far more effective way of doing the same thing is to send out a press release attacking the other guy and then the press feels more free to raise the issue. “Your opponent says…How do you react to that?” It’s actually easier for the press to use than planted questions that anger them on top of it. - South Side Mike - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:10 pm: corvax, I would agree, but look at the Bob Schieffer/Face the Nation mishap a few weeks ago when he had Eric Holder as a guest. Schieffer said he didn’t know about the DOJ whisteblower allegation in the Black Panther voter intimidation case, and had he known about it, he would have asked about it. Assuming Schieffer is honest about the oversight (and I’m trying to avoid getting off-topic or start a debate about national media), a tip sheet a day or two before the interview might have avoided this problem. On a local level, remember some of the facetious and serious questions that were posted by commenters when Rich had a QOTD about what questions should be posed to Blago when he was conducting his nation-wide media tour? Had some of the talking head hosts actually read the list, we would have at least had fewer instances of Blago spinning his yarn undisturbed and more instances of his squirming in his seat like the narcissistic twerp that he is. Reporters can’t be expected to know about every relevant, good question on their own. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:13 pm: I’m speaking both as someone with a a degree in journalism and active in politics — I actually think the reporters have a responsiblity to at least review and consider the questions. Just because they are provided by the opposition should not make the questions null and void. At the same time the journalist is under no obligation to use them at all. - Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:17 pm: After a reporter asked President Obama in an early nationally televised presser what had “enchanted” him most about being president (and was roundly ridiculed for wasting the question by scores of his fellow reporters who were not called on) it was obvious that the questions being asked of politicians are often not the questions voters and citizens care about. During a campaign the opposing camp’s suggested questions can be leading and manipulative. Of course they are. That’s the point But if reporters used some of them, prudently and carefully, yet aggressively and in equal portion, we all might actually find out things we should know about the candidate– not just what he wants to tell us. Goose. Gander. Hard pointed questions are good for both. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:21 pm: These releases (from both sides) should be the jumping off point for the interviewer’s research in preparation for the interview. That, of course, assumes the interviewer does some independent research and doesn’t just use the meme of the day, often a risky assumption. As to this particular interviewee, he is obviously highly partisan and will be, presumably, presenting Alexi’s view. I, for one, would like to see the answers to #2, 4 & 5. We probably can let the “mobster” meme run its own course. And for those who feel compelled to include “Kirk is a liar,” in every post, there, I’ve done it for you. Just trying to save you some typing. - Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:24 pm: I would think if it was a well informed reporter, the suggestions shouldn’t be that far off from what the reporter would initially want to inquire about. Sure, there will probably be a few ridiculous questions that appear on there, and those should be read and not considered rather quickly. - Logical Thinker - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:27 pm: It’s pretty cut and dry, I think. You either use them all from all sources or you never use them. Here’s why: if a reporter/journalist makes judgments on which source(s) questions to use, they (the reporters) are in essence controlling the story and allowing one campaign/source/e-mailer to get the upper hand. This is against the supposed “neutrality” of the press. If a reporter uses all of the questions, then what is the point of being a reporter? In effect, this person has just become a mouthpiece for others. I think the solution is use none of them. The whole controversy of the journolist makes me sick. It’s more than the partisanship displayed by those who we’re supposed to trust; it’s the coordination of messaging on a large level. I’d rather journalists/reporters do the work themselves and go back to old-school, dig deep into a story THEMSELVES, then let others direct the flow/message of story. That’s why so many people are distrusting of the news they hear now. These “helpful” emails really don’t help. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:39 pm: =it was obvious that the questions being asked of politicians are often not the questions voters and citizens care about.= The questions aren’t being provided by Voters, Responsa. And, no one should assume that Campaigns and Parties on speaking on behalf of Voters. Especially here in Illinois. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:41 pm: Sorry. “And, no one should assume that Campagins and Parties ARE speaking on behalf of Voters.” BTW, 11:54 was mine, too. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:42 pm: Logical Thinker, “These “helpful” emails really don’t help.” Most reporters don’t have the advantage that Rich does (us, of course!) to get the feel of the campaign across the state. These lists do provide some context on what the opponent thinks are the weaknesses of the candidates that the voters would want to know. They also no longer have the resources they once had, regional bureaus and such. These releases are useful tools to a diligent reporter to help him focus his research. To help me understand the media’s mind, I’d actually like to hear Rich’s opinion on this. I couldn’t read much into his preamble to this QOTD, and he is one of the few, or only, working journalists on the blog. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:45 pm: ===Most reporters don’t have the advantage that Rich does (us, of course!) === They are all here. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:49 pm: =I would think if it was a well informed reporter, the suggestions shouldn’t be that far off from what the reporter would initially want to inquire about.= “Perception of ‘manipulation’” comes to mind. The question is: Will “hitting home” one valid question that’s actually considered out of many outweigh the potentially negative impression the source may be making? - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:50 pm: =They are all here.= lol. Funny how some still “don’t get it”. - Brooke - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:52 pm: Use them when relevant but always disclose the source! Partisan sources put out a lot of information- some of which is legit. It’s the reporter’s job to filter out the junk. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:55 pm: I think the question is: The Repub party has sent out these questions–how do you think they relate to the campaign? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:58 pm: Brooke, “Use them when relevant but always disclose the source!” I’ve been mulling this over since I saw a similar statement in an earlier post. If the reporter uses nothing but the press release, I could buy that. However, if the journalist decides that the release frames a question that is relevant and on the voters’ minds, I don’t think it’s necessary to quote it. If the release raises a good point that is already in the public domain, the reporter “politicizes” a question that may be perfectly fair game. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:07 pm: =It’s the reporter’s job to filter out the junk. = And again, let’s not forget the “emotional” side to having to “filter” through ALOT of “junk”. Kind of like pulling up with a truckload of paper in response to an “Interrogatory” but with no “judge” to help keep the process moving as it should. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:11 pm: I would be concerned about a jounralist using talking points from somone else that they do not have the research to back up. I also am struck by the underlying assumption that these reporters covering him are so ill informed that they do not already have some questions ready to go. but if the reporters are really so inept tat they need somone else to find questions fro them I have no problem - Berkeley Bear - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:18 pm: If it isn’t your question, you shouldn’t act like it is. Otherwise, the perception becomes (as with Karl Rove and various Fox News types during the Bush administration) that you are just a mouthpiece, especially if you tend to use one side’s questions more than others. At the same time, you can’t just say “some people are asking” - too often, that is used as a shield by reporters when in fact they are the ones who came up with the question. Personally I’d prefer “the X campaign says you did Y and Z. How do you respond?” That way everyone knows what the source is, you can use exactly the words in the release, and if the organization feeding you the release doesn’t like it or won’t stand behind it they’ll stop sending you the releases. Of course, what I’d really like is less he said, she said and more independent analysis of accuracy, context, etc. but I realize that time and budget constraints as well as the whole idea of being some sort of neutral observer has pretty well killed that for daily news reporting. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:22 pm: Ghost, One other thing to consider is that it is the job of the candidate’s media shop to try to shape the debate to the candidate’s advantage. I don’t think that there is an underlying assumption that reporters are ill informed (lazy is another issue). But, it would be irresponsible of the campaign to not send out these types of releases. It is also irresponsible of the campaign to not have a nugget of truth to each allegation. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:24 pm: Toss them. If you can’t come up with the most important questions on your own…. … then you probably have a lucrative future in cable gabfests or talk radio. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:24 pm: use and admit it. A good question is a good question. Do not be either candidate’s attack dog or a member of their journolist - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:28 pm: =but if the reporters are really so inept tat they need somone else to find questions fro them I have no problem= Ghost, are you sure you got all the “players” right? - Rudyard Kipling - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:31 pm: six honest serving men taught me all I knew - what, where, when, why, how, who. Question 5 is the only one that would uncover new information; questions 1 through 4 can all be answered with one word. Reporters would be foolish to ignore these suggested questions, and smart enough to do their own research into the validity of such questions before asking them. - WRMNpolitics - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:34 pm: The suggestive questions sent out to reporters by both parties indicated a lack of respect for the intelligence of the media. A diligent reporter covering a candidate or race will know the issues and be able to frame their questions to get a response to the issues or allegations by the opposition. A reporter who uses these “talking point” questions will hopefully be asked by their employer to seek employment in another field. - anon - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:18 pm: the fact that the questions are delivered minutes before the news conference is proof enough they are sent with a goal of media manipulation. The premise if each question is a sound bite attack. A good reporter would review the questions, cut out the sender’s propaganda and find their own objective words to ask one–just one question from this source, and of course identify the source. And reporters should ask in their own words. NEVER NEVER should a reporter repeat verbatim the opponent’s questions or its premise. . NEVER EVER say “your opponent says…” and then repeat the words of the planted questions. That allows the opponent to use the media for its attack. I see (stupid) reporters fall for this all the time in media reports from Wash DC. Chicago is better media town for challenging politicians and candidates than the national village elite. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:33 pm: I don’t have any qualms about reporters using such questions as long as they are 1. pertinent and 2. worded in a non-partisan way - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:36 pm: It is not uncommon for a reporter to become the ‘friend’ of a particular campaign. IMHO once that becomes apparent, they should be forced to stand down from coverage of any political race in that election cycle. When they get materials from anyone they should evaluate the content and choose to use it or not based on their own experience. I might suggest that many reporters are spread too thin to give a lot of deep thought, but that is more and explanation than an excuse. In short, look at the suggestions, but don’t be lazy and do your own work. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 3:26 pm: They’re all good questions and I’d ask them, just as I would accept legitimate questions to ask Kirk from Alexi’s camp. The notion that we shouldn’t ask if someone on the “other side” thought up the question is foolish. - BIG R.PH. - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 3:57 pm: I have been interviewed enough times and been to enough press conferences to truly believe that on a whole (Rich being exempt of course) reporters are some of the laziest people. This is how we end up with incompetent people being elected. Reporters, for various reasons and mostly being that “media corporations don’t dedicate enough resources to them” don’t do the due diligence to dig deep and get the “real story”. And even if they do the research they still have trouble getting the 100% real facts straight. This how we end up with Blago, W & Obama. - Amalia - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:12 pm: just use the questions to determine the angle of the one who gave them to you. strong encouragement to give them blow back on their questions if you feel it is waranted by the degree of the angle. - Belle - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:50 pm: Use them. All the nonsense being asked by reporters is a waste of time. Ask the questions the opponent will hit the candidate with and REPORT it. Illinois probably leads the nation in non-coverage of candidates. And that’s really done us soooo much good…. - Robert - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:58 pm: what a great question, discussion and a lot of good points by the cap fax posters. I’m thankful most are substantive responsive rather than the campaigns’ supporters just going back and forth. I’d say do your homework, and then edit them so they aren’t so antagonistic but still are substantive and ask about the issues the opponent raises directly. I don’t like “Mark Kirk says X, how do you respond” as that gives the respondent a chance to just say “well, Mark Kirk has trouble with the truth” and dodge the question, rather than answer it. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 5:07 pm: Woah, Belle. Pretty strong words there. How does one determine which State “leads the nation in non-coverage of candidates”? - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 5:35 pm: And are you sure, Belle, that reporters should ask ALL the questions an opponent would? Sounds like that could wind up unnecessarily brutal and “thoughtless” at times. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 5:42 pm: Not to mention even possibly irrelevant, at times. But then again, maybe it would quickly lead to a form of “self-correction” by weeding out those who may be extremely aggressive and completely insensitive. - BH - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 6:28 pm: I’ll add another question. Mr. Giannoulias has repeatedly criticize Mr. Kirk for embellishing his 21 year service to the Reserves. Recently, Attorney General Blumethal of Conn., candidate for Senate like Mr. Giannoulias and Mr. Kirk, admitted to lying about his service in Vietnam (thank God we’re still not over this 35 years after we left Asia). How do you square Mr. Giannoulias harsh criticism against Mr. Kirk embellishments when Mr. Blumenthal had stated dozens of times of being IN Vietnam whereas he never left the country? Discuss. - 22skidoo - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:26 pm: @Robert: I strongly agree with your last statement. Just what I was thinking every time I read: “Use it and cite the source.” Planted questions only lead to planted replies and are useless. Here’s an idea: Why not make planted questions a story in themselves? Just as reporters ought to point out non-answers. Maybe then more people will see how insubstantial most press conferences are. Might make ‘em cynical, though…. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.