|
Question of the day
Tuesday, Sep 11, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller * Background is here. She doesn’t seem all that pleased…
Heh. * The Question: Since JB Pritzker used Amanda Vinicky for his TV ad and previously declined WTTW’s gubernatorial debate invitation, should Pritzker now grant Vinicky an exclusive one-on-one preelection interview? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. online surveys
|
 |
|
|
- west wing - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:23 am:
He should grant that interview and then do the Chicago Tribune. If you’re running for governor you need to be able to mix it up and push your policies and step up to the plate.
- Moby - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:26 am:
== He should grant that interview and then do the Chicago Tribune. If you’re running for governor you need to be able to mix it up and push your policies and step up to the plate. ==
Or do nothing as long as your 15 point lead is holding.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:27 am:
Stay on topic, please. We have already discussed the Tribune. They don’t need any help whining. They got it covered. So answer this question or move along.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:30 am:
JB should do nothing?
Overconfidence sure didn’t work out too well for Democrats in the last election.
Maybe Amanda can ambush JB at the drapery store where he and Juliana are “beat boxing” and picking out the drapes.
- SWIL Voter - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:31 am:
I voted no.
Not even a fan of JB but he can do whatever the heck he wants to do with that footage as long as it’s legal. He doesn’t owe her anything. If he suffers a consequence for not granting interviews to everybody who whines for one, it’ll be at the ballot box, but that looks pretty unlikely
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:31 am:
===Overconfidence sure didn’t work out too well for Democrats in the last election.===
It sure did here. Stay on topic or face banishment.
- thunderspirit - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:32 am:
He should, yes.
He won’t, and I don’t know that I would in his shoes either. I mean, I’d like to think I would, but I don’t know.
- People Over Parties - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:33 am:
JB’s political bravery has just been overwhelming! Yes, he should do the interview and perhaps a few others. People want transparency.
- Stark - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:34 am:
They absolutely should have let her know ahead of time, but there’s no law saying they first need permission from a public figure appearing in a public interview for an advertisement shown to the public. The nice thing to do indeed would be to grant an interview, but if not, there’s really no argument on her end. I don’t know what that says about anyone involved, but those are my first observations.
- Bogey Golfer - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:34 am:
Voted no. Amanda, unless you own the video, it is fair game for all.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:35 am:
With apologies to Amanda, I said no. She’s too good and he’s not as good for staying on message. I would say that if he becomes governor, which I hope for the good of the state, she should be one of the first in line for a few interviews. But the mission now is to get rid of the failed Rauner.
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:35 am:
Since he didn’t ask her permission, nor do her the courtesy of informing her he was going to use it, yes he should . When you feature a person in your ad, you should get their permission. Celebrities can and have sued for not doing so.
- G'Kar - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:35 am:
I think he should. Vinicky may ask him tough questions, but at least she is fair in her reporting.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:36 am:
Yes JB should. Absent that, he should expect to see a message from Gov. Rauner to the effect that “Amanda Vinicky is one of Illinois’ best political journalists and *I* at least had the courage to sit down with her in a one on one interview. It was a pleasure to do so, by the way.”
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:36 am:
Answer is “yes”
This a total bush-league kinda ad to begin with, where those trying to seek favor to move on to national campaigns by showing “how WE attacked Trump”, when in reality, Rauner is terribly unliked, polling under water at twice the rate of his positives and is a failure…
… so you run this ad, to be “seen” by our of staters as knowing how to “go after Trump”… and they used Amanda, who I like and respect and go out of my own way to see what she’s covering and tweeting… so yes, they 100% owe an exclusive, if anything because it helped boost careers for those thinking beyond November 8th.
As an aside, if none of you thought using Amanda in an ad after shutting her out of an exclusive one on one interview before airing was not a good move on the campaign side… you are indeed doing it wrong, or you didn’t know better, which is probably worse.
Make it right, give the interview to Amanda.
It’s owed, you are NOT doing her a favor.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:36 am:
I know it’s legal to use her image, but it would be gracious of him to do the interview.
- don the legend - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:38 am:
Voted no. Only because of today’s political environment. Any answer JB would give would instantly be chopped up, devoid of any context and used in an endless attack ad campaign.
Rauner is counting on the ignorance and laziness of the voting public. It’s his only shot. Any interview by JB would only give Rauner the continued fuel necessary to drive his corrupt campaign.
- Flapdoodle - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:40 am:
Voted yes, not because JB owes Ms. Vinicky in particular anything special, but because openness and candidate access are vital to any election.
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:47 am:
Wasn’t sure whether I should be voting from JB campaign’s perspective or from citizen’s perspective.
From JB campaign perspective, No…not until/unless he releases specific graduated income tax levels. Until then, he’ll look extremely foolish in any one-on-one interview - best to avoid the better reporters.
From citizen perspective, yes - candidates should be interviewed, one-on-one, more often. And while he doesn’t “owe” Vinicky, if he is going to use her interview in an ad, it seems only fair that he sit down too.
- Archpundit - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:48 am:
===he’s not as good for staying on message.
The best news reporters are good at getting gaffes as Michael Kinsley defined them–telling the truth on accident. That’s exactly why he should sit down with Vinicky–he either can handle that or he’s not ready for Governor.
I think he can handle it without too much of a screw up, but how candidates handle screw ups tells us as much as anything else.
- Honeybadger - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:49 am:
Voted NO. I agree with Bogey Golfer
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:49 am:
Exactly the right response by Amanda Vinicky. I’d like to see that conversation, and maybe we can start seeing a detailed discussion of how the state will pay its obligations. Whether its good for JB’s lead or not, it would establish the substance of, y’know, what the governor will actually do in 2019. We haven’t had a lot of substantive discussion of that in races this century.
- Hyperbolic Chamber - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:50 am:
Yes, it would be sporting to do so, but sporting candidates are not always the most successful. It would show the public the enormity of the difference between him and Rauner.
- Loop Lady - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:52 am:
Is this a trick question? It won’t help him and she should not waste her time…a big no…
- Anon0091 - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:53 am:
Willy, with respect, pretty sure you’re missing the strategy of the ad. It has zero to do with showing a national audience that you’re attacking Trump and everything to do with targeting disaffected Trump voters and reminding them that Rauner won’t defend Trump. In an election with an alternative conservative candidate, that makes perfect sense. If I had to guess, it’s probably a FoxNews cable buy targeting precisely those folks around the state.
But yea, I voted yes to the question.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:54 am:
Voted “no”.
I wouldn’t do it that way but Pritzker doesn’t owe her anything.
- The Most Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:59 am:
Yes. They used Amanda as a political tool. If they had any long-term strategy and any confidence in the team that preps JB, they would grant her an interview. Focus on the W, of course, but you have a multi-million dollar team in place for a reason. They have the resources to prep for an interview and grant access to the press. They should understand politics and press well enough to not be so dismissive of Statehouse reporters. Otherwise, it’ll be a long four years of strained press relationships and stakeouts.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 11:59 am:
Voted Yes ’cause I like WTTW. But I don’t think it’s owed. It’s footage of the Governor of the state. We can’t be so precious with how it’s used.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:01 pm:
Voted “yes”
In fact we would do about 30 min after Katrina and Edit Board finish with GovJunk. it will be an eye opener. Katrina will offer an hour of GovJunk’s lyin’ laugh. Then Amanda can have an hour of JB offering clear answers to her questions.
It also helps reinforce how useless the Trbbies have become.
- Montrose - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:01 pm:
I voted yes because I think it would be good for the voters. I don’t necessarily think he owes Amanda anything. I just think she is a solid reporter that would do a good interview.
- Chris P. Bacon - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
Personally, I think Amanda Vinicky might appreciate getting exposure to a much bigger audience. WTTW is a very niche market.
I do think Amanda, and all other women especially, should be very upset about the very condescending “mansplaining” by Bruce Rauner. That was very insulting to her and really shows how tone deaf Rauner truly is.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
===everything to do with targeting disaffected Trump voters===
After pondering it a bit and reading some well-written comments yesterday, I think it has a lot more to do with shocking women voters with Rauner’s attitude toward a polite female reporter just trying to do her job.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:03 pm:
===pretty sure you’re missing the strategy of the ad.===
Nope. I’m actually not missing anything, thanks.
Here’s how I know…
===It has zero to do with showing a national audience…===
Yeah, I’m gonna stop you there.
It’s showing the out of state consultants looking for talent to work on national campaigns that “they” get the national messaging.
===… that you’re attacking Trump and everything to do with targeting disaffected Trump voters and reminding them that Rauner won’t defend Trump===
In September?
Nope. This is a resume ad. “Here’s how we went after Trump. You can email me, or call my cell” kinda ad.
Rauner is 26 points under water, Pritzker is holding at even, lol better, so… you run this, early-mid September? Hmm.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:04 pm:
Sure, he should schedule it for 6:00pm on Movember 6th.
But seriously, do local news anchors get upset when they get featured in political ads? Mary Ann Ahern has starred in her share of those and I don’t remember any fuss.
But I get it, Amanda is on public TV, so ratings and fame aren’t what she’s used to. She’s a heck of a journalist though, that’s not in dispute.
Yessir, 6:00pm on the 6th. That way, if she brings the heat, Pritzker won’t cost himself the election. And if it makes her feel better afterward, so much the better.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:07 pm:
===I think it has a lot more to do with shocking women voters with Rauner’s attitude toward a polite female reporter just trying to do her job.===
… marry that to the questioning which included Trump as the underscore to that highlighting, that is a take that shouldn’t be as subtle as it is made here.
You can edit this three different ways, I see, to make it, 1) demeaning women 2) dismissive of Trump (if you are still wanting that, less Amanda) 3) aloof as a governor, with these edits inserted to facts.
It’s lazy, not passively smart.
- Earnest - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:20 pm:
I voted yes because I liked her response and because she would get better information out of him than debates. If I’m Pritzker, maybe I ignore this but make peace by giving her one of his first interviews after the election, win or lose.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:25 pm:
Yes. I think the Vinicky ad was more of a counter to the Diana ad than anything to do with Trump. Pritzker and Rauner are both trying to lock in women voters. I think an interview where Pritzker talks respectfully to Vinicky would help bring in women voters.
And certainly it helps with a new administration to have some friendly reporters when you take your first missteps.
- dbk - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:26 pm:
Voted “no,” but was doubtful about it.
My impression from the ad was that its target may have been that group of suburban Republican women who voted for Rauner.
Because he was unbelievably condescending to her, and that won’t go over well with this group of voters.
Personally I think both candidates - and those for some other offices like AG - should sit down with our state’s numerous and outstanding political reporters for in-depth interviews on topics like (a) progressive income tax possible forms, (b) paying down state pension debt, (c) legalization of marijuana, (d) social services, (e) Quincy and many more.
Vinicky, whom I greatly admire, would doubtless get her share of such interviews, but it’s not going to happen.
Where’s the substantive discussion in this campaign?
- Perrid - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:26 pm:
The gif seems a little hostile/threatening. The contrarian in me would tell her to take a leap, if I was Pritzker. That being said, people seeking public office should not indulge their inner child.
Voted yes, not just as some sort of apology but because I think it would be a good interview.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
===was more of a counter to the Diana ad===
Very good point. Very good.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
There’s what’s legal, and there’s what’s right. JB has to weigh the relative merits of waiting this out and looking a little afraid to give honest answers, versus leaning into it an maybe eroding his lead a little by giving Rauner new material to spin negatives from. . If he wins, he’s going to have to lean into it on a regular basis.
JB’s being strategic. But sometimes you gotta roll the hard six.
It goes to character.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:32 pm:
. . . I think an interview where Pritzker talks respectfully with Vinicky would be [effective and generally helpful] . . .
Especially if a new ad is made splicing together excerpts from both interviews
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:33 pm:
I voted Yes because someone needs to tell that woman to focus…wait…/s
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
–After pondering it a bit and reading some well-written comments yesterday, I think it has a lot more to do with shocking women voters with Rauner’s attitude toward a polite female reporter just trying to do her job.–
Absolutely. His condescension and lack of respect for her was palpable and so revealing.
You get an opening like that, and you can make like Randall Cobb and hoof it down the middle of the field untouched for 75 yards to the end zone (yes, it’s Tuesday, I’m still bitter).
In the dentist waiting room yesterday, I caught a full “Ellen” show. Every commercial break had a Pritzker spot, sometimes two: a pro-JB and an anti-Rauner.
See the strategy?
No Rauner spots on the show, by the way.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
Voted no. With apologies to Amanda, whom I adore, this was footage of a public official broadcast over the airwaves. It’s fair game.
===After pondering it a bit and reading some well-written comments yesterday, I think it has a lot more to do with shocking women voters with Rauner’s attitude toward a polite female reporter just trying to do her job.===
Totally, 100% agree with this. My only question is whether it’s also running downstate, because if so, it could have the added benefit of showing Trump supporters that Rauner ain’t one of them.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:36 pm:
No interview from Pritzker for Amanda until Rauner believes she has learned to Focus.
- Keyser Soze - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 12:40 pm:
No. Just no. Amanda is one of the best. She needs no special favor.
- Lt Guv - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:00 pm:
Yes. Schedule the interview for Nov. 6th, late in the day.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:02 pm:
Voted no. I realize Dewy beat Truman but JB owes her nothing and all he can do is make a mistake that might cost him.
- Reality Check - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
If I’m advising JB, Chicago Tonight gets the first, or among the first, sit-downs after your successful election night. Live, not taped.
- Real - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:15 pm:
Voted no. Amanda get over yourself.
- walker - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:19 pm:
Yes. It would be fair, and good to see. JB would do fine.
- Sue - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:36 pm:
Yea- and ask him about Takeda announcing today that it is leaving Deerfield and relocating to Boston taking 1000 Jobs. What is JB going to do to make Illinois more attractive to employers as opposed to just focusing on more taxes and Social program giveaways
- DeseDemDose - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:44 pm:
No, JB doesn’t need to sit for any WTTW interviews and get asked about his family trust funds and off shore accounts 10 different ways.
- DuPage Bard - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:48 pm:
Voted No. All he can do is make a mistake and have that get used in an ad against him. Rauner’s folks are far more likely to get something out of a botched interview question than JB will ever get out of an interview on WTTW with Amanda, even if it goes great.
Jeanne ives interview with the Trib may be one of the best dismantling’s I’ve ever seen of an incumbent candidate and yet it was spliced and cited against her.
Do the live interview Nov 7 at 7pm during Chicago Tonight. Be the first sit down with the new Gov.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:50 pm:
===All he can do is make a mistake===
So? The guy talks to reporters on a regular basis.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:52 pm:
I dunno if i want a governor so scared to sit down for a one on one that it’s a strategy for the last eight weeks of an election.
I’ve seen that movie before.
His name was Bruce Rauner.
- Rod - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 1:54 pm:
I also voted no. Journalistically unless a candidate is editing and cutting something a reporter put out inappropriately they have no right to complain about its use in a commercial. It has nothing to do with JB granting any type of one on one interview.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:00 pm:
Look, I get the Tribune denial. That editorial board thundered for 2+ years in favor of the impasse. It blithely dismissed analysts of the governor’s budget proposals by calling them “Poindexters.” It willfully ignored the very real damage to real people, some of which can never be undone, all in favor of stuff that couldn’t pass anyway. Plus, when’s the last time that paper endorsed a Democrat for governor in a general election? Legislative Democrats stopped attending its interviews years ago (after an edit board member traveled to Springfield to interview Downstate Republicans but not Democrats).
But Amanda is a reporter. She does her job and she does it well. She cheerleads for no one. She’s in nobody’s hip pocket. JB used her in an ad. He owes her this. /rant
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:00 pm:
Amanda got used. Pritzker made her look like a victim which she definately isn’t.
JB owes her big time.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:10 pm:
Voted yes. Since she wasn’t paid by Pritzker’s campaign and the only ethical thing to take from him would be an interview for news purposes, why not?
- nonothing - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
I voted no. Amanda’s right that no journalist wants to be featured in a campaign ad like this. That being said, she now most likely feels the need to be even harder on Pritzger to show she isn’t biased towards him. If I’m running the campaign, no way do I give an angry reporter a one on one. Giving her advance notice just would’ve started an argument because there’s no way she would say this is ok. I don’t know how you patch that relationship up but I understand why they are running the ad and Amanda, as a professional, should understand too.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
I say let the ad run continually and once the exchange is burnished in everyone’s brain sit down for an interview with Amanda. It would give Pritzker an opportunity to flip the script and show how to respectfully answer a reporters questions without being condescending.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:40 pm:
===Pritzker made her look like a victim===
How? By using a video clip that she and her photographer made? I mean, this clip was originally broadcast on WTTW. There is no editing, no voice over, nothing. Just the original clip that aired.
Try again VanillaMan.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:42 pm:
=== JB used her in an ad.===
Sorry, but I disagree. Even if you think the premise was to upset suburban women by showing Rauner’s condescension to them, the ad’s focus is still Rauner’s answers, not Amanda’s questions. The ad is about Rauner.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:50 pm:
I wrote yesterday that my late Swedish grandmother wouldn’t have liked the time of the ad. I don’t like the cavalier treatment of on of the best Statehouse reporters.
Make amends by doing a sitdown, JB. You kinda look like a butthead right now.
- Boone's is Back - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 2:58 pm:
Yes- he needs to get used to answering tough questions if he’s going to be Gov.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
Yes. And he should pay her. A lot. To do otherwise would be even more disrespectful.
- Anon0091 - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 4:11 pm:
“Yes. And he should pay her. A lot. To do otherwise would be even more disrespectful.”
Huh? No. That’s not how this works. At all. As 47 said above, lots of reporters and anchors have been featured in lots of tv ads. This is no different with one caveat. Amanda looks like a wonderfully persistent and effective reporter in this spot. I doubt she’s really that upset.
- Ga. Dawg - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 4:32 pm:
No politician is going to give substantive answers in campaigns for two reasons. One, we, the voters, either don’t pay attention - our attention span is that of a goldfish; or two, we punish those who do so because we don’t like what we hear.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 4:50 pm:
Voted no…I agree it’s fair game in the game of politics…Although I have great respect for the reporter…unlike our current paternalistic Governor.
- Springfieldish - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 8:35 pm:
“People want transparency”
But candidates are punished for the slightest nuance. The road to transparency is paved with soundbites for the opposition. Recall how Rauner ran in 2014. Nary a word about his Turnaround Agenda, nor was he called out in any meaningful way by the media for the lack of transparency. In an era that now has no groundrules, nobody gets nothin’ just because it might be the right thing to do.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 11, 18 @ 10:08 pm:
Any candidate should be flattered that a reporter would like to interview him or her. I doubt that Kash Jackson has any interview requests.