It’s a bit of a hijack, I suppose, but Colleen Lachowicz responded to criticism in an interview with WoW Insider here.
I’ll agree that it wasn’t a very well phrased question, but I think it points to the larger picture that Ryan doesn’t seem to like follow up questions.
Hard to tell from this question. Had the reporter followed up with something like
we might have a better idea of Ryan’s resistance to policy examination.
“Deaths per second”! Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!
The taxes “question” had nothing to do with the response Ryan had given, and, in fact, required the interviewer to ignore the list of things Ryan discussed (more opportunities, less poverty, teaching discipline and good character, more involvement with charities, civic groups, and churches) in favor of asking a dumbass question. He might has well added a “Huh, huh, huh” after the question or jumped up and cried “Ha! Take that Ryan! I win!!!”
It was a stupid, nonsensical question that had little to nothing to do with anything Ryan had said, had little to nothing to do with gaining more information, and everything to do with scoring a stupid political point.
Or even simpler:
Would that be a bullshit question, too?
No, it wouldn’t. Because it doesn’t assume a specific policy path, as the reporter’s actual question did.
Maybe the question was bullshit, so give an answer that is bullshit. He’s a politician and should be expected to answer tough, even outright unfair questions. Throwing a tantrum under the auspices of an off-screen handler does not speak much to presidential qualities.
100% agree with Mr. Miskatonic’s post above.
The reporter is still a dumb ass, of course.
Isn’t the policy path that was assumed in the original question something that Ryan has promised to do?
This.
Also see Ryan’s “I don’t have time to go through the math right now,” bullshit when asked follow up questions regarding how “revenue neutral” the Romney Tax cuts are.
Do tax reductions get reflected uniformly across budgets? Are marginal income tax rates the sole source of goverment revenue? Is an overall budget decrease prohibitive of expanded government efforts on any single issue or social concern?
The problem with the ABC reporter’s question wasn’t incorrect assumptions regarding the consequences of Ryan’s fiscal policies, it was that the question was biased toward the reporter’s own judgement of those consequences. That’s commentary, not reporting. There are dozens of objective questions that could have brought out the same contradictions in the Romney/Ryan platform without assuming a particular conclusion.
During my lifetime, tax reductions have been reflected with increases in the budget. So I guess the answer to your question is “no”.
I think the question still gets at a valid point. It’s easy to promise tax cuts. It’s easy to promise lots of services, like a strong defense and new Medicare benefits. It’s pretty easy to implement them, too. But when someone promises to do those things and reduce the deficit, something’s got to give; and I don’t think it’s out-of-bounds for a journalist to ask about it. If Ryan wants to cut spending in some other area to pay for this promise, that would have been a valid answer to the reporter’s question. We should have the bad news, too, before we cast our vote.
Of course it’s not out of bounds for a reporter to ask about seemingly conflicting promises. “How you gonna pay for that?” is, as you said, always a legitimate question.
“You can do that by cutting taxes?!” is just not the same thing. Yes, Ryan should’ve been able to respond instead of flouncing away in a huff, but the phrasing was asinine and combative, which went a long way toward enabling Ryan’s evasion of the point.
Not so stupid to suggest an abortion, but amazingly stupid to have taped the call and kept the tape.
“How are you going to pay for that” doesn’t point out the contradiction, unless you assume that the viewers are already familiar with Ryan’s promises on taxes.[sup]*[/sup] I think there’s a better way to phrase this question than what the reporter did, but I don’t think it’s completely out-of-line, either.
I kinda wish reporters would be more combative during interviews. Politicians have all the time in the world to say the things they want to. Someone needs to press them on the things they don’t want to talk about.
- Anyone watching this interview with Ryan is almost certainly interested enough in politics to know his stance on taxes. I’m just being a bit over-literal here.
And triply amazingly stupid to have let his wife listen to the tape, thinking it would portray him in a favorable light and help patch up their marriage, according to the story.
I dislike defending Ryan, too. But if I were he, and a reporter asked me a question like that, I’d probably bag it, too. Diminishing returns, and all that. “I’ve got a lot on my plate, adios, asshole.”
Yes, because it’s a question, not an observation. The report which results from an interview such as the Ryan one can certainly point out contradictions, correct factual misrepresentations and otherwise set the story straight (or present a particular editorial slant through selective emphases, etc.), but that’s honest analysis and reportage of a politician’s actual pronouncements.
A leading question which presumes an unsatisfactory answer is as unethical as a “push poll” question; it portrays the desired or anticipated p.o.v. without regard to the actual response. It’s lazy and dishonest journalism which is effective for exploiting controversy or for provoking a target, but it sucks at uncovering actual policy positions. Which makes it bad, stupid journalism in addition to the bad ethics.
(And I should probably stop the thread hijack, now.) (If one can even hijack something this big.)