In Defense of Jan Crawford
[IMPORTANT UPDATE: Those who think Crawford is part of some grand Big Media conspiracy to “get” Romney should take a look at her Twitter feed from the night the Cairo embassy issued its statement. I plan to write a separate post about this, but for now just let me point out that, even before Romney issued his statement, Crawford was passionately criticizing the Cairo embassy statement herself — and defending free speech. Sample tweet from Crawford: “@ernietedeschi The embassy statement wrongly suggests speech that offends or ‘hurts…feelings’ is an ‘abuse’ of the right to free speech.” Does that sound like an arrogant Big media reporter out to decimate Romney?!
Armed with this information, I re-read the transcript of the open mic “coordinating” and now see it as Jan essentially pushing another reporter to avoid a tendentious attack on Romney and simply have the press corps ask a neutral question.
More on this later. — Patterico]
[UPDATE x2: Here is my post showing that Crawford agreed with Romney’s sentiments and portrayed them fairly and positively.]
So that whole “coordinating the questions” thing with Romney involved someone I like very much: Jan Crawford. If it were almost anyone else, I’d be assuming the worst regarding the reporter’s bias and arrogance. After all, I think most of us agree here that Romney’s statement was entirely proper and that he didn’t deserve the criticism that Big Media tried to heap on him. We conservatives tend to view anyone who seemingly tried to take Romney to task as one of those arrogant Big Media types that we should be suspicious of.
But Jan Crawford just isn’t one of those types. And I’m not about to discard her based on a few seconds of unclear open mike audio.
I met Jan Crawford in April 2007 when she was Jan Crawford Greenburg. We had drinks in the bar of her hotel during one of her visits to Los Angeles. At the time I wrote that she “is not only a fascinating person, but also someone who is completely down to earth. She is smart, funny, humble, and doesn’t take herself too seriously.”
That, to me, is the most impressive thing about her. She’s completely the opposite of an arrogant Big Media type in every way.
What’s more, she “gets it” when it comes to various conservative issues. Remember, this is the woman who firecely defended Clarence Thomas against charges that he was a Scalia lackey. In her book she examined his jurisprudence and proved that Thomas was more of a trailblazer than Scalia, and that the criticisms of him as a lazy follower were totally unfounded (and, I will add, probably have roots in liberal racism). She had a very wide-ranging, sympathetic, and fair TV interview with Thomas that was revealing and fascinating.
When I met Jan we didn’t discuss political views and I don’t know what hers are. But she is unrelentingly fair in a way that shows she understands conservative positions in a way few in Big Media do, which leads me to believe that she is either at least mildly conservative, or possesses an extraordinary ability to understand the positions of others and articulate them to an audience.
Jan is intellectually honest and knows about firearms. These are two traits you don’t see in most Big Media types. She wrote about Sarah Palin in a way that, unlike most Big Media types, was not condescending.
Most recently, Jan used her contacts inside the Supreme Court to give the country insight into the way that the ObamaCare decision was reached.
When I read that she was becoming CBS’s political correspondent, I said:
I admit to somewhat mixed feelings, since Jan is really a strong legal reporter — the best out there, in my opinion — and I think it’s a shame to lose her in that capacity. But this will mean more airtime, a more visible position, and ultimately better reporting on the most important issues facing our nation. (When I put it like that, it’s clear the upside far exceeds the downside!)
All in all, a great move. Please give Jan your warmest congratulations. I have utter confidence in her fairness and look forward to her political reporting.
I still have utter confidence in her fairness.
So how do I reconcile that with this clip regarding Romney and the embassy statement?
Quite simply: by giving Jan the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that her years of fair reporting and clear articulation of conservative perspectives was a sham, simply because of a few seconds of audio whose meaning is not utterly clear to me.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time in this post trying to defend the audio. I don’t think “coordinating questions” in the abstract is a bad idea, when reporters want to make sure all topics get covered in a short span of time. To me, the issue that maddens conservatives is the media attack on Romney on this issue, which appears to us to be phony. I will note that Jan’s proposed question was not tendentious — just an open-ended “do you regret the statement” question — but it seems like the assumption built into the question is that there is a valid reason he should regret it, which there really isn’t. I guess there are people who believe the statement was a mistake — including Republican strategists (which floors me!) — so it’s not out of left field. But I would have liked to have seen questions that don’t assume Romney screwed up.
Ultimately, if anyone is going to defend this angle, or the few seconds of audio, it would have to be Jan. She knows what she was thinking. I don’t.
Part of me thinks it might be a good idea for Jan to explain what was going on there. Jake Tapper is very accessible and engages with critics, and while he has pissed us all off a few times, he gains a lot of credibility with people when he takes the time to actually respond to people who take him to task.
At the same time, I saw a lot of vitriol yesterday headed Jan’s way that seemed to ignore the history of fairness that I documented above. If I were Jan, I’m not sure I would want to speak out in such an environment.
I have reached out to her about this and invited her to give her side. I don’t know whether she will want to make any statements publicly or not.
Whether she says anything about it or not, I think it’s wrong to take a person’s entire career of fairness and chuck it overboard. Criticize her if you will, but let’s not suddenly make her the Poster Child for Liberal Bias, OK? I would suggest that we seek the ideal of having an open mind and giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has earned it.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of cynical pundits out there openly exploiting this faux controversy to slam Romney — people like Ruth Marcus or the editors of the L.A. Times, who (unlike Jan) have no history of fairness to point to. I’d start by slamming those people.
UPDATE: I have much more here. I am now dead convinced Jan is getting a bad rap on this. And if you read my post, you will too.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link! I’m glad he appears to agree with my analysis.
people do change…
not saying she did, but one never knows, and yesterday’s deeds are just that, yesterday.
what she’s doing these days is what matters, and it’s up to her to make an explanation.
until then, RIL.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:11 amRuth Marcus’ column is extraordinary. Much like everything Tommy Xtopher has scribbled about this topic.
I think Ms Crawford would be well served to explain herself, as this clip does not paint a pretty picture.
JD (16fdce) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:16 amWhether she is good drinking company doesn’t matter. She and the entire media are cheerleaders for Obama ’12. And the question which has not been asked of her or anyone else in the pool is what contact did she or anyone in the Romney pool have with the Obama campaign, direclty or indirectly.
Think it’s fair to say Romney’s general presentatuon, i.e., empty-headed platitudinous dreck like “I believe in America”, is right now not making the sale.Simply not being Obama will not be enough; he ahs to say what he would do. But the self-appointed media umpires are in the bag for Obama, and it’s wrong.
Bugg (6cf7f9) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:21 amI think in a post Journo-List world giving reporters the benefit of the doubt isn’t always the easiest thing to do. However, I do think the points you raise here have merit. I hope she takes the time to respond to your invitation.
Rich Horton (3ef32b) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:22 amThe non-proctological view of this issue is why is this important and where is POTUS to address these important concerns?
The fact 6 of the 7 questions were similar and they all went to gotcha politics speaks volumes to the reporters mindset.
Remember, Romney is still a private citizen. POTUS is POTUS. Romney will have time to articulate his FP views soon enough.
It reminded me of a school bus pile on. Same mentality and for that she should bear some responsibility along with others in the room, as those at the MSM.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:25 amAs I’ve been saying on twitter, this coordination doesn’t demonstrate media bias. It demonstrates that reporters aren’t good at thinking on their feet.
This incident also proves that journalists aren’t good at coordination. They wanted to make sure someone asked the question, then they went ahead and asked the same damn thing 7 times in a row.
Hoystory (249551) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:31 amI agree, Jan should be given the benefit of the doubt based on your interaction with her. She must know how the recordings appear to any objective observer of coordinating questions. I’m sure this happens all the time, given short time span to ask questions.
HOWEVER, given that 6 of the 7 questions asked by the press were essentially the same question, each answered by Romney the same way, she has to take your offer to explain herself.
If not, she’s forfeited the “benefit of the doubt” tag because if she was attempting a guarentee to get the question asked, that was accomplished on the second question, twice.
Steve in SoCal (457fff) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:42 amMatt Hoy is absolutely correct when he writes:
And it gives me something to think about. Although, I suspect they often ask the same question over and over trying to goad Romney into saying something “newsworthy.”
T
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:50 amShe’s the poster child for liberal bias because she coordinated with other reporters to ask Romney questions that, by your own admission, assumes Romney was mistaken — and she’s said nothing in response.
Furthermore, I’m not ignoring Crawford’s past willingness to fairly analyze conservative legal issues, but that doesn’t mean I should assume she brings that same attitude to her political analysis. She has a record but this incident is part of her record, and it leaves me with unanswered questions. If she’s not willing to answer them, I guess she’s more like Obama than Romney in that respect, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:51 amHell, I’m even willing to cut Kirsten Powers slack, despite a record of Liberal apologia.
It helps that she’s comely and indiscriminate with her affections for men.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:00 am______________________________________________
But Jan Crawford just isn’t one of those types.
I’d imagine it must be very easy for a person employed in a trade full of liberals and left-leaning punditry to not come down with a severe dose of “Stockholm Syndrome.” If Jan is savvy about conservatives and rightist thinking, then she’d have to be doubly tuned into liberal people and their behavior.
There’s also the possibility she’s an ideological version of a chameleon, using Harry Truman, the Democrat who desegregated the military and loved the idea of publicly funded healthcare, as one notable example. No outsider would have ever imagined such a person like him speaking and thinking (and writing) like an out-and-out Klu Klux Klanner behind closed doors.
Mark (674399) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:00 amLie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
glenn (877ee1) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:14 amGreetings:
My preferred answer to “Do you regret…” questions is “Perhaps if you would be so kind as to explain what or why I should regret…”. That bit gives the interrogator an opportunity for a little self-exposure.
11B40 (9b4e2b) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:15 amI don’t think “coordinating questions” in the abstract is a bad idea, when reporters want to make sure all topics get covered in a short span of time.
I agree with that, and I wasn’t sure why the clip- what little I could understand of it, was all that condemning. But in the larger context, things are suspicious knowing how they usually come out as pro-Obama.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:20 amI think it’s more entertaining to watch the reporters go to Romney for answers on the crisis.
I mean, it’s not like the actual Administration appears to be treating it as a crisis, nor are they answering any questions, so whatcha gonna do?
Ask the only guy who’ll give an answer.
luagha (5cbe06) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:30 amWell, get an interview with her and get her explanation. She is now a CBS employee, and she must do their bidding. The tape speaks for itself. She was part of the coordination of a gang of reporters following a Democratic narrative switching the blame to Romney rather than Obama. That makes her part of the enemy.
Pete (bade5b) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:37 am2007 was before the coronation and the ushering into our Age of Enlightenment by our intellectual betters. It’s their chance to change the world for the better.
Everyone thinks they’re part of said elite and so become the guardians of it.
Hawkins (1fc204) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:42 amJeez, now I’m concerned for the objectivity of Patterico if his cozy conversation from 2007 gives license to an obamabot stooge in 2012.
Westie (ece8d5) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:48 amAll of us tend to listen when someone we tend to respect vouches for the character of another. My mind will remain open.
School Marm (aac638) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:49 amI agree with the rest of the esteemed commentators on this blog that Ms. Crawford needs to explain herself, if not directly to us than at least through some other party (a CBS blog, for instance). If not, it is not unreasonable to think that she is yet another one of the media water boys (or water girls) for Obama, her pleasant cocktail company notwithstanding.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:53 amMy preferred answer to “Do you regret…” questions is “Perhaps if you would be so kind as to explain what or why I should regret…”. That bit gives the interrogator an opportunity for a little self-exposure.
How about: “Speaking of ‘jumping the gun,’ you folks seem to be under the impression that I am already the President of the United States. That won’t happen until January.”
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:57 amGeez, just the way they planned on “framing” the question makes me suspicious regarding her and her colleagues motives. The childishness of the “Does your mother know you _____?” type set up questions just annoy the h3ll out of me.
∅ (721840) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:02 amThe stated intention to make sure that particular question would be asked first is fine. What is not fine is asking the same question repeatedly in a badgering manner. If they had coordinated a series of different questions in an attempt to cover as wide ranging material as possible then I would not have a problem with that coordinating effort. As it is they look petty and foolish. They wasted an opportunity to ask the one candidate who was prepared to speak with them some revealing or even some interesting questions and it looks from their manner of repeating the one question that they did it an attempt to embarrass Romney. So unless your acquaintance can either give some explaination or she can show some evidence of fairness in political reporting then no, I do not like to be fooled twice and she needs to prove herself. She has earned my distrust and so starts not from the trust but verify position, now she starts from the PROVE you are not a leftist hack in the tank for Obama position.
TexasMom2012 (cee89f) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:30 amNever attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:42 amHey, I’m still waiting for some honest reporter to explain how the rocks, cement blocks, etc. were just waiting for some people with nothing to do at Florence and Normandie got there.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:43 amI can’t imagine someone who’s covered the Court and has written that Clarence Thomas is a giant on the Court really wants Barack Obama to appoint 2 more bobble-heads.
It is as someone said, they wanted that question asked, The endless repetition just shows that reporters can be just as stupid as normal people.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:43 amYeah, hard to say they were trying to make sure there weren’t any duplicates and that all the bases were covered when there were duplicates.
We get it, though — she wasn’t rude to you, so she can’t be a hack. Gotcha.
Rob Crawford (c55962) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:48 amnobody’s attacking this Jan Crawford person with anywhere near the zeal with which she embarrassed herself
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:55 amI’ll admit to being beyond surprised (closer to shocked) when the individual who was recorded organizing the reporters and who initially was identified only as “a CBS reporter” turned out to be Jan Crawford. My own impressions of her work and from seeing her in person had been similar to Patterico’s, and I recall saying so on an earlier blog post here.
With her interactions within the Romney press group of jackals fresh in mind it will be interesting to see if she chooses to respond or to react in any manner. I imagine it will be hard for her to do that in writing– and to some extent for her to do so would just be another example of reporters inserting themselves into the story or being the story which is one of the reasons many of us so hate what modern “journalism” has become. The tendency for so many “journalists” to become celebrities in their own right, to want to act both as reporters as well as pundits, and to seek fame as Twitter stars, has been a terrible development for them, the profession, and also for any American who still wants unvarnished and honest news gathering and events observation from the media–not amateurish gotcha questions. But if Jan Crawford is who I think she is, perhaps being “outed” will cause her to re-evaluate the situation privately and give her fresh insight about herownself, her character, and journalistic independence, for her future use as the campaigns unfold.
elissa (8d5592) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:57 amPerhaps interviewees need to fall-back at some point to that favorite response of opposing counsel’s to redundancy:
Asked and Answered!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:16 amHmmm. Was she ever part of a crew asking POTUS questions? And if so, was she an enabler/cheerleader or a journalist?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:32 amWhat I got our of it is just that we had a situation where Americans were being slaughtered like Ramadan goats while shameless propaganda slut Jan Crawford coordinates gotcha interviews with National Soros Radio whore Ari Shapiro.
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:35 amSimon–be serious! POTUS does not answer questions from the media because he does not hold press conferences where questions can be asked.
elissa (8d5592) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:36 am*out* of it I mean
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:36 amElissa, remember Jake Tapper calling after POTUS following his “drop in” presser: “Dont’ be a stranger.”
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:37 amI think the main objection to what transpired at that “presser” is not that the media was coordinating their questions, it was that they kept hammering away at the same question, which had been answered.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:52 am—see my previous comment—-
When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water.
Per Patterico’s comments and the comments of several others here, I think we shouldn’t jump to conclusions just yet.
Perhaps she will respond to Pat’s query and the answer will suffice. I haven’t listened to the question session, but perhaps the sequence would give some clue. Was Jan’s question on the subject the first of the 6 or 7, or was she later in the pack? Did she ask the same question a second time or more? If she asked it first and once, then there is no real conclusion we can draw. If she was later in the sequence, then this becomes more open to discussion.
I personally think Mitt should have answered, “Well, somebody had to say something. The silence from Washington was deafening.”
Bill M (e0a4e5) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:53 am36—-more—-
Their problem was that they didn’t like the answer, and they kept fishing for a different one, and the more consistent Mitt was, the more pissed the media became.
Well, I’m just sorry, you don’t get to decide whether or not the answer is wrong, or inappropriate, or dumb, that is a decision that the American People get to make.
Your job is to report the news, not make it!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:55 ama real reporter would’ve asked Governor Romney about whorenanke’s impending rapacious debasement of the dollar I think instead of asking if he was for reals when he released a statement that was critical of how our cowardly Cairo embassy staff groveled and apologized about free speech that they had butt-nothing to do with
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:57 amMaybe you don’t know Ms. Crawford as well as you think you do. That presser was a coordinated attack by Obama’s minions on Romney. She was right in the middle of the planning meeting for that attack. If that wasn’t what she was doing, how about she tells us it wasn’t. It sounds to me like you’re defensive because you realize you were wrong about her, and she’s just another member of the leftwing media horde.
davidinvirginia (e843d5) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:05 pmHey, go easy on Ben, I want one of those sub-three or lower Re-Fi’s that are in the cards with this new round of QE.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:05 pmok but after that we have to start acting like a respectable country again
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:06 pmRespectable, mispectable….
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:07 pmI would settle for RESPONSIBLE!
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
S (3b3713) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:20 pmSucker.
GlassEye (051220) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:24 pmOh man, this is just the worst case of paisley knee-pad suck-up-ism I’ve seen in some time.
Dude, you totally need to get up off the floor and wear your shame like a cloak. Apparently during Saul Alinsky 101 you missed the lectures. Apparently you were sniffing the hem line.
Here: Click to behold the face of evil
Pathetic times a bahzillion.
Paul A'Barge (f558d4) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:27 pm[IMPORTANT UPDATE: Those who think Crawford is part of some grand Big Media conspiracy to “get” Romney should take a look at her Twitter feed from the night the Cairo embassy issued its statement. I plan to write a separate post about this, but for now just let me point out that, even before Romney issued his statement, Crawford was passionately criticizing the Cairo embassy statement herself — and defending free speech. Sample tweet from Crawford: “@ernietedeschi The embassy statement wrongly suggests speech that offends or ‘hurts…feelings’ is an ‘abuse’ of the right to free speech.” Does that sound like an arrogant Big media reporter out to decimate Romney?!
Armed with this information, I re-read the transcript of the open mic “coordinating” and now see it as Jan essentially pushing another reporter to avoid a tendentious attack on Romney and simply have the press corps ask a neutral question.
More on this later. — Patterico]
Patterico (5e7bc1) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:30 pmDude, you don’t win by starting to slam the worst of them. You win by slamming them all, every single one of them. Hit back 2X as hard. Every time.
Paul A'Barge (f558d4) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:31 pmKeep it up, it won’t work. She now has zero credibility. She is one of them.
Paul A'Barge (f558d4) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:33 pmArmed with this information, I re-read the transcript of the open mic “coordinating” and now see it as Jan essentially pushing another reporter to avoid a tendentious attack on Romney and simply have the press corps ask a neutral question.
hmmm. I am eager to read this there’s no doubt that craven National Soros Radio reporterwhore Ari Shapiro has by far the worse track record
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:34 pmbut if Jan Crawford is a fair reporter aren’t you worried about exposing her?
the other ones will eat her for lunch
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:37 pmEverything that our Host says of Ms. Crawford sounds peachy. So why, of the universe of questions that could have been asked of Romney, did His Heroine choose this one to be sure got priority for harping on?
Person of Choler (d7c543) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:50 pmWhat is the alternative explanation? Why would Crawford coordinate with the other journalists in the first place for the purpose of asking the same question?
Surely a seasoned reporter is able to think of some other relevant question to ask the guy who might very well be the next President? If so, why not ask it?
I’m sure she’s a good person. But like the other journalists in that room, she wanted to ask that stupid and leading question and she wanted to be on record as having asked it. Why? I suspect her bosses told her to. Whatever the reason, she blew an opportunity to actually be a real reporter with real questions.
Bryan Costin (026a8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 12:58 pmComment by Mark — 9/14/2012 @ 9:00 am
Harry Truman….No outsider would have ever imagined such a person like him speaking and thinking (and writing) like an out-and-out Klu Klux Klanner behind closed doors
He didn’t like the Ku Klux Klan. They were against Catholics, too, and some of the soldiers who served under him in World war I were Catholics. Unfortunately, that seems to have been the main point he had against the Ku Klux Klan, at least what he voiced.
He came from a Confederate family.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:17 pmI agree with patterico. She’pretty, so c’mon, guys!
csavy (02261b) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:23 pmAnd Jimmy Carter used to claim he was first president from the south, or at least the deep south since whenever.
There was Johnson. All right, he came from Texas. That’s not really the south, although it had slavery (till June 19, 1865 – Juneteenth) and segregation, although less deprivation of voting rights, and it had joined the Confederacy, albeit over the strong protests of Sam Houston.
There was Truman. From Missouri – which was a slave state, and his family had sided with the Confederacy.
There was Wilson. Brought up in Georgia during the Civil War.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:23 pmLet’s see if it is possible to find out what actually was going on there.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:26 pmJan Crawford may be ordinarily among the less bad liberals in the press, but she’s a liberal nonetheless. The pressure on her to join the Obamawagon is surely great, and it’s not surprising she joins. You just can’t excuse her because she’s a little better than the rest of a very bad lot.
CatoRenasci (552b8f) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:29 pmJan Crawford purposely tried to make the Republican candidate for president look bad. That was the sole purpose of the conversation. The questions weren’t probitive, they were stones in the brook Romney had to navigate to the other side. And they were setting up the slippery ones so he’d fall on his ass.
Birdbath (716828) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:48 pmShe may be all of these things, but they don’t necessitate that she’s immune from herd behavior.
Half Canadian (838147) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:54 pmThat’s the charge, that the press acts like a herd, and typically in one direction. She was caught coordinating herd behavior.
The commenters disagree, Patterico.
I know, “et tu, Jan?” It must feel so very disappointing to be disappointed.
holmes (52f2e2) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:55 pmBut Jan Crawford just isn’t one of those types.
The question isn’t whether she is “one of those types.” The question is whether she abetted the herd mentality and focused that presser on the timing of Romney’s comment rather than on more substantive questions.
Regardless of whether her actions on that day were part of a broader pattern or not, she did what she did. Good people sometimes do bad acts.
On this particular issue, compare Crawford with Kirsten Powers and you’ll see where Crawford was in the wrong.
Conrad Baylor (fc0e48) — 9/14/2012 @ 1:56 pmI didn’t think anything of the conversation in the first place. It’s just people trying to make sure they get questions in. Dumb questions, biased questions, but just questions.
It really is a day of shame for our media–we have to read British papers to find out what happened!
Patricia (e1d89d) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:05 pmBought and sold by the Barry machine. There is no excusing what she did. She’s a shill.
Jim Ryals (88abc3) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:09 pmHow very sweet of you, it brings back fond memories of Erick Erickson “forgiving” the journOlister who wrote for the Washington Post as a “conservative” who spent the whole of 2008 working w/the Politico folks to DESTROY Sarah Palin, ummm, what’s his name? oh yeah Dave Weigel! Once ensconced inside the 95 corridor from Washington to New York the all to failing human condition of wanting to be “liked” overtakes ones VALUES!
JadedByPolitics (@JadedByPolitics) (d53574) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:14 pmGeez Mr. Frey, that sounds sooo John McCain.
PC14 (87cbf8) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:32 pmLet’s assume you’re correct and Crawford was trying to convince other reporters to consider conservative viewpoints.
She’s doing a lousy job.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:37 pmCrawford’s taped conversation wasn’t a problem, it was just two reporters consulting on how to phrase the question and making sure it was first in case only one or two questions were taken. That’s fine.
The problem is that every question to Romney was a version of the same thing. That was the disgrace, after the second one, Romney should have refused the third and told him to return to his editor, he would not be called upon again, and when his editor could send someone with a longer attention span, they would be recognized.
Estragon (13e813) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:40 pmPatterico, as a prosecutor, ask yourself:
Is she guilty or innocent? We don’t know — she hasn’t explained herself and the evidence hasn’t all been presented.
Is there enough evidence to convict? Possibly …
Is there enough evidence to build a case and charge her? Damned right there is!
Murgatroyd (f20081) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:47 pmNo, Pat. It’s the part where she’s collaborating with other reporters to pester Romney with questions based upon the assumption that he ought to regret his statement that makes it sound like she’s part of a cabal of Obama operatives out to get Romney.
The fact that she was tweeting almost exactly what Romney later said, then was coordinating with other reporters to ask Romney if he regretted having said it, makes it all the more bizarre.
Did Jan Crawford regret her public response to the Cairo embassy statement? If not, why should Romney? Or did Jan Crawford only regret her public response once she learned Romney’s reaction was the same as hers?
And I “get” the fact that pool reporters would want to make sure that all the bases are covered at a press conference. Jake Tapper tweeted that Romney only takes a few questions, so they might coordinate to make sure the important questions are asked.
The problem with that explanation in this case is, based upon the audio as well as the actual questions, the reporters were only wanted to cover one base.
So, another question for Jan Crawford (and Jake Tapper). Why waste six out of seven chances on a candidate who doesn’t take many questions to repeatedly ask the exact same question?
Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 2:51 pmso what you like her… well if you like her so much tell her she has to fix her classless act ..are you kidding me, when your friends act like complete asses you call them on it, otherwise you end up worse than them because you ALLOW it
whocaresifyoulikeher (fce9b5) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:04 pmMy thoughts were exactly those of Pat’s. I had only a couple of hours previous retweeted something that Crawford wrote regarding the First Amendment.
Among MSMers, most “journalists” don’t deserve benefit of the doubt when it comes to bias. Bernard Goldberg and Jake Tapper have won that benefit. Sharyl Attkisson, with her dogged determination to bring Fast and Furious into the light, has also. So has Jan Crawford, who was the only one in the MSM who gave the necessary context to the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan while the others were fawning over them as pioneers for Hispanics and (ahem) softball players, respectively.
L.N. Smithee (d6449e) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:14 pmThere was something to regret in his statement:
Romney had said the first statement after the attack was one sympathizing with (the grievances or complaints) of the attackers and did not condemn the attack on the embassy.
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,”
But the Obama campaignistration complained that statement has been issued before the attack had breached the embassy walls, before any attacks had happened (in an attempt to avert that, obviously)
The timing of the Cairo embassy statement was something that, presumably, Romney had not known.
And there was no later statement (while hey gathered their wits maybe) except a tweet that the original statement was not repudiated.
Romney’s statement, although issued a little after after 10 P.M. was originally embargoed for 12 midnight, because he did not want to criticize the president on foreign policy on the solemn, non-political day of September 11th.
Either hearing of the Romney statement, or independently, the Obama Administration did issue some statements in the 10 O’Clock hour (eastern time)
This would have had the Romney statement coming out after indeed there was a statement condemning the attack – in fact actually, a “first” statement.
So the embargo was lifted.
Reporters were trying to get Romney to admit that he messed up in at least some small way. He wouldn’t do it. He wouldn’t even explain why none of what he did was a mistake, or at least the kind of thing to regret.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:21 pm“Lets give her the benefit of the doubt”
Just like she doen’t Romney but absoultely DOES Obama, IYKWIMAIKYD
Jack (520565) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:28 pmWhat Jan Crawford and all those other JOURNOLISTAS say they want to do is make a difference,
but their actions show that they want to re-elect Obama. My guess is now that she works for CBS, she has to follow the “make sure Obama is elected at all costs” editorial line.
Jack (520565) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:34 pmDemonstrations are expanding. In 40 cities. In Egypt Morsi went on TV to get big demonstration cancelled.
About the Internet video – they claim US. not punishing them.
UN outpost and chain restaurants attacked in Egypt.
British and German embassies in Sudan.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:39 pmEverything I’ve ever read by Crawford says she’s “fair and balanced” in whatever form of that you’d like to read.
I gotta go with Patterico on this one even though most of the press is so sycophantic they’d embarrass Putin. Most is not all.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:39 pmIt is OK to use words like “Crawford” and “integrity”. But never in a positive association.
Jack (520565) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:39 pmI believe the Ambassador in Benghazi was kidnapped out of the safe house and interrogated and choked to death.
It would be a bad assumption to assume he was not interrogated and gave up no secrets.
His body was found later by other Libyans and taken to the hospital and they gave up CPR after 20 min after noticing there was some problem with his airways.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/14/2012 @ 3:42 pmEven the sweetest lapdog will become a vicious animal in the presence of a pack. She instigated and actively participated in a televized lynching. So, believe your sentiments P, or your lying ears.
Gunga (50fdee) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:12 pmI cannot read all this stuff. CBS reporter conspiracy may be acceptable as a news strategy, but what is it with all the reports asking the same question 6 or 7 times in varying forms?
Tom (4bc5bf) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:19 pmI guess you are not going to believe your lying ears. Pathetic! Perhaps you could send her a copy of the clip, and ask for a response.
Ralph (c64867) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:23 pm“The timing of the Cairo embassy statement was something that, presumably, Romney had not known.”
Sammy – Why presumably would Romney not know that, since everybody else did? Also, isn’t the Department of State part of the Obama Administration?
“He wouldn’t even explain why none of what he did was a mistake, or at least the kind of thing to regret.”
Sammy – What part was a mistake?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:24 pmGive it up, Sammy. There was nothing regrettable about Romney’s statement.
And the US embassy doubled down on their original assualt on the first amendment:
Romney didn’t screw up. Not even in a small way.
Obama, on the other hand, screwed up in enormous and multiple ways. Both by encouraging the radicals in the ME to radicalize further by his fecklessness and by how his blind ambition to remain candidate Obama and never become President Obama left him no time for actual duties.
Romney’s kept his eye on the ball. The one that matters. Not the one Obama chases around on golf courses.
Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:27 pmThe journos in this taped conversation were not trying to save time. They were trying to re-elect President Obama.
Birdbath (716828) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:29 pmI read what you wrote, Patterico, and then relistened to the conversation with fresh eyes as you said you did. And with the willingness to give her the benefit of the doubt. Most of what she said could be innocuous but this part seemed troubling:
– – – – – – – – – –
(my transcription from the clip)
Jan Crawford: I would just say, “Do you regret your question?”
Other voice: (somewhat unintelligible)
JC: I mean “your statement”. Not even the tone. Because then he can go off on…
Other voice: And then if does, we can follow up and say…
– – – – – – – – – – –
So, they’re not just making sure a specific question gets asked. It’s more than that. They’re framing the question to steer his answer in a specific direction. And they have a Plan B if he answers in a certain way to steer it back to where they want it again. And notice the other reporter says “we”, as in “we” will do this. Not I. It’s blatant maniuplation and Jan Crawford appears to be in the thick of it.
kcom (4c0caa) — 9/14/2012 @ 4:41 pmComment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/14/2012 @ 3:42 pm
One pretty detailed account makes it sound as if he and one other never made it out of the first building and probably did die from smoke inhalation. I guess the other two were security (ex-SEAL types) who were shot in defending the safe house that came under attack. It sounded like there were quite a few survivors rescued by joint US and Libyan central government personnel.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:00 pmPat, perhaps when Jan gets back to you, you can ask her to direct the one really important question to Obama.
Will the turmoil in the ME interfere with the National Yard Sale for Obama that’s just one short week off.
I’m sure the man who agonized over the OBL raid because if the Special Forces types assigned to that mission were killed or captured the optics would have been terrible for his re-election chances.
But he boldly gave the order despite the grave personal risk he was running, potentially ending up as a one-term President. I’m sure his bold selflessness was a great encouragement to those Air Force and Navy special operators going into harms way.
Naturally, I’m sure the media must be sweating bullets over the possibility that the Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, and al Qaeda sympathizers attacking our embassies may actually interfere at some point with the President’s ability to attend WH photo-ops, campaign fundraisers, and rallies.
I hope they do get around to asking. If Obama ever deigns to take questions before the election. And the press can break away from attempting to manufacture anti-Romney talking points.
I can’t sleep at night worrying how events in the ME may effect King Putt’s re-election chances. And his golf game.
At least I don’t have to worry if he can sleep at night. He had no trouble getting a full night’s slumber, even when he learned a US ambassador was unaccounted for while a mob assaulted the consulate at Benghazi. What the hell! He’s only the President, what’s he supposed to do about embassies and s***? If the guy’s dead, that’s the kind of news that can wait until morning.
But that Romney character is a real prick for commenting about the DoS’s limp wristed statement, isn’t he? Romney proved he’s not up to the task of being President. As we’ve learned from the example set by Teh Won, when US embassies are under assault and the lives of US government workers hang in the balance, a real President just ignores the whole thing.
Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:05 pmSo, they’re not just making sure a specific question gets asked. It’s more than that. They’re framing the question to steer his answer in a specific direction. And they have a Plan B if he answers in a certain way to steer it back to where they want it again. And notice the other reporter says “we”, as in “we” will do this. Not I. It’s blatant maniuplation and Jan Crawford appears to be in the thick of it.
I agree with this and would add not only were they attempting to make sure a specific and specifically framed question were asked and contingency plan established if he gave the wrong answer, but they had no shame about it – including Crawford. It was in the open, agreed upon and spun and seemingly done without any fear or thought to what other reporters there might think of such behavior.
If she were a paragon of fairness in her reporting, wouldn’t the
Dana (292dcf) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:15 pmcollusionvery nature of the question have troubled her enough to speak up – in the name of fairness?“Do you say what you mean do you mean what you say?” is a pathetic line of inquiry from professional journalists when sovereign U.S. territory is on fire from barbaric thugs pissed off at a bad Lifetime movie. Whatever Crawford’s explanation, I’m not buying it.
Birdbath (716828) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:18 pmI’m waiting for some interested member of the media – you know, a “journalist” – to ask or research if there have been any other 9/11 anniversaries where our consulates and embassies were not put on a “high alert” status/posture, especially in the Middle East. I won’t hold my breath.
Colonel Haiku (7bf0cc) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:27 pmThe administration and the the State Department know just how bad all of this reflects their stone incompetence and that why they continue their attempts at deflection at every opportunity… even as they unload the caskets of the plane.
Colonel Haiku (7bf0cc) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:29 pmWho knew!?!?
IRONY: U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald named as source of leak. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150708/
Colonel Haiku (7bf0cc) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:35 pmYou know this woman so you give her the benefit of the doubt. That is fine.
I don’t know her. I assume that she is a lying weasel like the rest of the journalists who are in the tank for Obama.
When I want to learn what is going on in the United States I read the web sites of the British newspapers because the US media lied to me one time too often. America’s newspapers and network news can’t go out of business too soon to suit me. Whatever replaces those biased partisan hacks will have to be better because it can’t be worse.
Mark in Texas (4f29b4) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:43 pmI’m sure she’s a wonderful person – for an unprincipled hack.
bandit (6b0538) — 9/14/2012 @ 5:58 pmI am going to bookmark this thread for use when some troll accuses Pat’s commentariat as all being in lock step with him marching along in an echo chamber.
Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:09 pmJan Crawford needs neither to explain nor apologize. Who the WTF has not misspoken, ever?
Words. They say anything you want them to and are mostly a contribution to the CO2 levels.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:13 pmIf Crawford and her cohorts put in half the preparatory collusion on the exceedingly rare occasions they’ve been allowed to question Teh Won, she might get the benefit of the doubt.
No sale, Mr. Frey.
Colonel Haiku (7bf0cc) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:15 pmWithout having read this testimonial, I still think the right jumped on this too quickly without knowing what was really going on. A few seconds of broken audio can give the wrong impression. So I wouldn’t be too quick to go down the “You see! They are conspiring to take down Romney!” road.
However, the question itself, a la “When was the last time you beat your wife?”, is what I find very troubling. Why would Romney regret it? Why would that be the first question asked – over and over again? There were so many other questions that could have and should have been asked BEFORE the “regret” nonsense.
Whether intentional or due to a bias which they are unaware of, it’s a very bad thing for society to have the media act in this way.
svg1234 (039aa6) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:19 pmSorry. She got caught. She conspired to influence an election. She set the tone of the next few days with her agenda. She owes Mr. Romney an apology – heck, we can say she offended his religion or something. Odd she criticized Mr. Romney for the same statement she made. It almost seems like someone is feeding her questions….
Karen (70ece5) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:24 pmNK,
She didn’t “misspeak.”
She intended to say what she said. She just didn’t intend for it to be broadcast over an open mic and discussed in blogs.
An example of “misspeaking” would be when Obama recently referred to Paul Ryan as “Jack Ryan.”
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:24 pmWe all know that Obama meant to say, “Paul.”
The lamestream journalists never get caught asking liberals too many questions. In fact, the only mistake the lamestream journalists make in regards to liberals is not asking enough questions, and not asking tough enough questions.
It’s kind of like when people claim an “oversight” or a “mistake” when caught underreporting their income taxes to the IRS.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:33 pmPeople who are trying to skirt the IRS usually underreport their income—they don’t overreport it.
How many times … never mind. If I could take every wrong word I said back, I would never stop talking. Leave the girl alone.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:38 pmPatterico, why don’t you everyone some trouble and ask your friend if she’s a member of the Cabalist, AKA JournoList 2.0?
Murgatroyd (f20081) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:38 pmIf Ms. Crawford is indeed all that Patterico attests to – smart, funny, humble, and doesn’t take herself too seriously – (and I have no reason to doubt this), I think those very qualities by default will compel her to respond and offer an explanation as she would not want to see her professional reputation questioned or besmirched. And, she would not she would want people who respect her to possibly lose that respect.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:48 pmIn general I share our host’s good opinion of Ms. Crawford.
This episode doesn’t outweigh everything else she’s done which I admire. But I emphatically do not admire this episode, at least in its murky outlines.
And that those outlines are still murky, however, is her fault. She needs to explain if she wants to salvage the good reputation she earned. That people are critical is no excuse whatsoever for her failure to do so — unless one thinks cowardice is a virtue.
And I think the vehemence of the reaction is in large part due to the fact that we expected better of her than this, and we’re concerned that this unguarded glimpse actually represents the common reality instead of an exception.
I also don’t at all share Patterico’s view that the campaign press pool’s “coordinating questions” is okay in the abstract. It’s emphatically not okay in the abstract or in the concrete, it’s collusion designed to script and therefore limit and channel the American political dialog. It’s a very, very fundamental breach of journalistic ethics, and if abstracted and universalized would make a mockery of the entire concept of the “Fourth Estate” as a watchdog of our liberties.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:57 pmnicely said Mr. Beldar you get a gold star
happyfeet (5e4920) — 9/14/2012 @ 6:59 pmInteresting…I used collusion in 89 and felt it harsh and reworded. A benefit of the doubt given. But I remain unsure.
Dana (292dcf) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:03 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Rut4qm33g
Safe. Patterico hates this version of this song. He knows how to delete it.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:14 pmIt’s no accident that we metaphorically speak of the “marketplace of ideas.” The members of the press corps who are allowed continual access to our major-party candidates are repositories of our collective trust, but they aren’t supposed to act collectively themselves. Instead, we rely upon them, and their questions to the candidates, to reflect, in broad terms, the interests of the electorate in all its diversity and peculiarity.
If the candidate takes ten questions of ten different reporters, presumably each of those ten reporters will have considered what’s previously been asked before asking his own, to avoid wasteful duplication. Among them, they should manage to fairly inquire about not just the “consensus” issues, but some of the outliers too.
What Crawford appears to be caught on tape doing is the journalistic equivalent of price-fixing. That’s hard to prove in the marketplace of commerce or the marketplace of ideas, but occasionally there’s the proverbial “smoking gun”: the memorandum agreeing that next quarter’s steel output will be limited and prices fixed, the revelation that there’s a JournoList, or here, an open-mike snatch of conversation which dispels all pretense of journalistic independence of thought or action.
If the question is genuine, and genuinely important, there should never be any more need to coordinate its asking than there is for manufacturers to coordinate the price of steel.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:18 pmKind of “… cast the first stone”. Not that Jan Crawford is Mary Magdalene or Patterico is Jesus. See? I almost misspoke.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:20 pmHeh, Beldar! I trusted my mother and father, but they are now dead. I trust my brothers, my daughter, and my favorite wife, now. Myself, too, sometimes.
Repository? Marketplace? You’ve got to be kidding me.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:25 pmSounds like an uphill battle. Who ya gonna believe, your fantasies or your lyin’ ears?
It surely sounds like a gaggle of propagandists tried to set Romney up with a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” question, and conspired to see that no decent questions which might distract from the attack were asked instead. There might be more to the story – there usually is – but until we hear it, we have to go by the best evidence available. And that don’t look too good.
Past behavior isn’t an overriding consideration. A lifetime of sterling service can be blown with one dumb or selfish act; cf. Benedict Arnold. Or, for that matter, Neville Chamberlain. Or, shoot, even Dan Rather. Or maybe Marius, though that’s going back a ways.
rantbot (0793a2) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:26 pmWell, Marius, before going senile, was the nightmare that made German children behave. Were Sulla or Caesar all that much better?
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:32 pmPatterico, you should not have even made this post.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:33 pmShe is a member of the pack, and accordingly must abide by the rules of the pack.
jayneb (2cc2c5) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:33 pmLet’s see what questions she asks The Empty Chair if he ever allows any to be asked.
Exactly!
kcom (4c0caa) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:39 pmnk, I believe in the concepts. I believe they’re still being executed reasonably well in commerce. I share, I think, your disappointment in the execution of the concepts in current journalism, but like our host, I intend to continue doing my best to call attention to examples in which the execution has fallen so far short of the concepts’ nobility. Priesthoods must be held to their own rules, at least; unlike my priesthood, however, Ms. Crawford’s doesn’t require current licensure, and she and her peers have no analog to my “bar card” that can be revoked.
Also, for the blogospheric record, ping: “Beldar on Patterico on Crawford.” Not worth your trip, folks, there’s nothing there I haven’t posted here already.
Beldar (eed156) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:51 pmYou’re always worth reading, Beldar. But, like I would do with Patterico, I would waive closing argument were I defending against you.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 7:58 pmLooks to me like the general consensus is Jan Crawford lost all her credibility by getting caught doing what we all knew the MSM was doing all along.
My father used to tell me that “One `Oh, Shit!’ wipes out a thousand `Atatboy’s'”. This is her Oh, shit! that she either has to explain or lose the all the respect that she had earned throughout her career.
Jay H Curtis (804124) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:14 pmEven if we accept the explanations that at least one of the WH stenographers involved in the collusion (not Crawford, NPR’s Shapiro) is putting forth as legitimate, it still makes no sense.
Shapiro is claiming that it’s SOP for pool reporters to coordinate questions to avoid redundancy.
But in this case, their coordination resulted in nothing but redundancy.
In other words, there is no defense for this. So, as they are obviously growing used to doing when defending the Obama administration, they are just lying to our faces.
Sorry, Pat, the other presstitute involved is himself demonstrating with his feeble attempt to defend this that there is no ethical excuse for what they did to Romney.
Steve57 (b2dac8) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:30 pmI appreciate your opinion and support your right to it. However, I have personally been damaged by the ‘but my Congresman is not the problem’ argument too many times to wish to consider taking quarter any longer. No more. No hard feelings. Unfortunately, this is war; neither business nor personal, simply existential.
tubbyhubby (69ed1a) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:30 pmIf they are smart enough to coordinate, you’d think they are smart enough not to repeat the same question.
I think by Second Grade, I learned not to ask the same question 5 other people asked before me in succession.
If Harvard Law or Business were run this way it’d take 20 years to get your degree.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:36 pmIt was 100% a lynching.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:37 pmAnd, yes, sometimes Good People do bad things for bad reasons just like sometimes Bad People do good things for good reasons.
Put her in the former and call it a day.
Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60) — 9/14/2012 @ 8:39 pm“Let’s give Jan Crawford the benefit of the doubt.”
Let’s not, and say we did.
I’m sick of cutting these media reptiles slack. Like the Arab Street, they treat accommodation as a sign of weakness, and carry on as before. I’ve listened the tape, and it’s as clear a case of “message coordination” as I’ve ever heard. $100 says it never happens before an Obama presser–not that he’s had that many, mind you.
I have no doubt that Crawford was nice and balanced when you spoke to her. She was, after all, talking to “Patterico” — how else was she going to behave. But once back with her cronies, she reverted to type.
The hell with them. All of them. The only people in the news media I trust at all anymore are Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto. (Rush isn’t news media; he’s opinion, like Krauthammer.)
Kim du Toit (e7c033) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:01 pmWhy?
Patterico (83033d) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:17 pmIt’s all Romney’s fault. If he ran press conferences like the president does (on those once a year occasions when he takes questions) it wouldn’t be a problem. The reporters would have all submitted their questions to Romney’s advisers in advance for review & rewriting, and the press
max (131bc0) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:33 pmcorpsecorps would have received a list of the spontaneous questions which would asked. Romney needs to run a more open and accountable campaign and not make things difficult for the press by failing to dictate to reporters what they must do.It’s all Romney’s fault. If he ran press conferences like the president does (on those once a year occasions when he takes questions) it wouldn’t be a problem. The reporters would have all submitted their questions to Romney’s advisers in advance for review & rewriting, and the press corpse corps would have received a list of the spontaneous questions which would asked
Yep, and the sad thing is that as soon as he is safely reelected and re-inaugurated, the press will start bitching about how Obama never faces them and takes their questions. In fact, I could easily see them being hyper-critical of Obama in a second term (though they certainly won’t try to damage the Democrats any more than collaterally in 2014 and 2016) as a way of trying to mitigate all the damage they are about to do this year to the concept of a far and impartial media.
JVW (edec8d) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:39 pmIs Jan Crawford hot?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:46 pmIf she has a history of asking Obama and other Dems equally tough and aggressive questions, I might give your thesis some thought. Otherwise, not so much.
RobKral (e37f1d) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:47 pmIt is pretty easy to ingratiate yourself to others if you try. This woman obviously has that ability which I am sure comes in handy when you are reporter. It helps to be able to disarm people. That doesn’t mean she isn’t a committed leftist however. Seems that Conservatives were taken in by her charms and are now lamely defending her.
Ken Royall (77a747) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:52 pmI’ve just finished listening to the 9/12 press conference, and I was struck by the repeated questioning. It is almost as if each reporter was ignoring all the blah blah blah blah in the room and waiting for their chance to ask THEIR question. Which happened to be the same one as before. This is especially the case with the woman who asks the same question verbatim at about 6:10.
This doesn’t really address the bit about collaboration, but it does address the repeated nature of the questions.
Also puzzling is why Romney didn’t say “I just answered that!”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:55 pmThat doesn’t mean she isn’t a committed leftist however.
Well, no. Doesn’t mean she isn’t a space alien either. However in all the articles and books she’s written on the Supreme Court, where she’s the only one willing to tell Thomas’ and Scalia’s side of things and explain their legal theories clearly, there is a lot of indication she is not a leftist.
She might still be a space alien though.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/14/2012 @ 9:59 pmUPDATE: I have much more here. I am now dead convinced Jan is getting a bad rap on this. And if you read my post, you will too.
Patterico (83033d) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:15 pmwell, you “discarded” Palin for less. but then she’s a conservative, and tea party favorite, so that was OK
Born Free (0acc57) — 9/14/2012 @ 10:38 pmPatterico, you should not have even made this post.
Why?
Comment by Patterico — 9/14/2012 @ 9:17 pm
The lady is above need of defense.
nk (875f57) — 9/14/2012 @ 11:39 pmI’m sorry, but if defending her is so fuc%%ing CONVOLUTED, I don’t want to wade through your interminable ‘explanation’. I prefer dealing with people who’re prepared to take a MORAL STANCE which doesn’t require a third party (such as yourself) to ‘explain’ to the rest of us what she REALLY stands for.
alwyr (1dc6d8) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:18 pmComment by daleyrocks — 9/14/2012 @ 4:24 pm
“The timing of the Cairo embassy statement was something that, presumably, Romney had not known.”
Sammy – Why presumably would Romney not know that, since everybody else did?
I actually don’t know what everybody did know.
The excerpt repeatedly quoted makes it sound like he thought it was issued afterwards. This might be the result of successful propagandizing by the Obama campaign and very inept defense by Romney. I should note that if he didn’t have his facts right, that could be the fault of the Obama Administration: Romney still hadn’t gotten any intelligence briefings so he wasn’t being kept up date. They will finally start next week for him and Ryan. Romney had been trying to get these started for several weeks.
I heard some excerpts of what Romney said this night on “Both Sides Now” This makes Romney look a lot better.It looks like Romney said it in his press conference Sept. 12. I think it’s from here: http://www.therightscoop.com/full-press-conference-mitt-romneys-statement-on-libya-and-egypt/
Romney said:
1) That they stand by the Cairo embassy statement – which he might have heard, even if it wasn’t exactly right. And if this is Sept 12, the Obama people were saying they never had really stood by it.
2) It is never never too early to make a statement condemning the attack (which might mean he might have heard they were working on a statement, and his complaint was they were taking too long. It was all over at 1:30 AM Libyan time or 5:30 or maybe 4:30 PM Eastern time. The fact that at 10:09 P.M. he had that embargoed for midnight means he didn’t expect them to come out with anything very soon)
But this was more a talking point. Ryan said it too. It’s more a defense of why it was all right to complain- several hours was plenty time enough for the government to say something.
3) something was inappropriate. Now I don’t remember what it was, but it seemed to be a good statement, and I just wrote down the word inappropriate.
Also, isn’t the Department of State part of the Obama Administration?
This was a originally a low level statement, albeit in line with policy. Trying to get Google to remove the video, which hey still continued, is of a piece with the same thing.
“He wouldn’t even explain why none of what he did was a mistake, or at least the kind of thing to regret.”
Sammy – What part was a mistake?
At the very least, embargoing his statement and then lifting it. That indicates a lot of improvisation.
Sammy Finkelman (8c951a) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:51 pmHi. Welcome to the site.
I didn’t read your whole comment but I disagree with it.
That’s OK with you, right?
Patterico (83033d) — 9/15/2012 @ 7:57 pmQuin Hillyer felt it necessary to defend Jan Crawford also. Good that Quin and you are exercising First Amendment, good that you both want to be fair, et cetera, but instead of feelings, conservatives at this point need facts. To me, the most offensive part of the tape was where she said something to the effect of “say this instead of that, because THEN HE CAN JUST…” It doesn’t matter if her intent was to keep Romney from sidestepping something, her function is not to direct the action to achieve a desired outcome.Also, if she is a good reporter, what’s she doing tweeting? She ought to be digging and reporting. Finally, the epiphanies some reporters are beginning to have as they see the possibility of a change of administrations is a little bit, suspect, don’t you think?
bobmontgomery (c81452) — 9/15/2012 @ 8:31 pmI’ve read your argument and I find it persuasive to say the least, but I did two things. First, I read just the questions, without Gov. Romneys answers attached. I suggest you do the same, as it does nothing to support your claim. Second, I put myself in a liberals shoes. Would they “give the benefit of the doubt” if their presidential candidate walked into an ambush? Would they say, oh she’s been sympathetic to Joe Lieberman, so let’s look past this? No. So there’s my answer. No. I CANNOT give this woman the benefit of the doubt. But it seems you have a real friend, and you are to be admired for your loyalty and honesty. Two traits a liberal does not possess when it comes to the American political dialect.
Jack Murray (70bf44) — 9/15/2012 @ 9:57 pmSorry. it was a conspiracy to shut up criticism. , Plain and simple. 8 questions as if they all thought of them. Liberal Obama cover. Like always. Even your ‘friends’ are not. She would bury you in a second if it meant a single vote for Obama.
pat (0833d4) — 9/15/2012 @ 10:08 pmPersonally, I don’t care how much the press coordinates, with questioning Mitt Romney, a man who had no control over the actual events he criticized, but I certainly wish the sycophant press would coordinate a little more about what they’re going to ask the President and his spokesman.
If the Democrats had the same press scrutiny as Republicans, they wouldn’t win an election.
bflat879 (fedefc) — 9/16/2012 @ 5:09 amPatterico, Wipe that Kool-Aid off of your lips. Defending LSM doesn’t make you look very good. Unless of course you’re trying to get a job with the lamestream news media. If not, give it up. Your defense of Jan crawford sickens all of us.
Paul (a322ab) — 9/16/2012 @ 6:18 amSadly, Crawford, helped form this template, with her approach;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_white_house_and_press_create_a_fairy_tale_version_of_history.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/16/2012 @ 6:38 amI did not know anything about Jan Crawford, prior to her involvement this past week. I appreciate your post which provides more background. The problem is, if you google Jan Crawford, anyone can see the consistent unfair reporting she has done pertaining to Romney. One example, she reports how Romney is behind Obama by 10 pts with women, but doesnt say anything about Obama being behind 9 pts with men!! There are many one sided reports of hers regarding Romney. You have caused me to consider why should would be doing this. Could it be she so desperately wants to be “a real reporter” that she has caved to what her network and new colleages on the campaign trail demand that she be? Unfortunately, only she can explain this. The truth will set her free! You are a good friend, but I wonder how much time you have spent looking at het bias towards Romney????
jackiet (938943) — 9/16/2012 @ 6:41 amPaul speaks for everyone. Good Allah.
JD (c926af) — 9/16/2012 @ 6:59 amWell, Patterico, word on the street is that Eva Braun made a hell of a schnitzel and didn’t hate puppies but she was still Adolph’s CONCUBINE.
Looks like someone let their attraction for a little skirt override their judgement.
Who are you going to believe her or your “lying’ eyes? There was a agreed upon narrative which had to be pushed to protect Obama and your little sweetheart was right in the middle of it. She and her fellow Journo-listers were there for one reason only. To get the backdrop for their narrative…it did not matter to her or the others what Romney said or quoted except that they would use the tape as background noise for the preconceived narrative. Guilty.
LogicalUS (56d211) — 9/16/2012 @ 7:49 amSome of these drive-byeS are douchenozzles.
JD (c926af) — 9/16/2012 @ 8:42 amThanks . I’ve been looking for this info . Good info I will be back for information in regards to Liquid Diet.
Liquid Detox Diet (2c3492) — 9/21/2012 @ 2:37 am