When I try to get a job, I am required to go through several rounds of interviews. If I refuse one of them, odds are very slim that I’ll get hired. This makes sense. After all, interviews are an important way to determine the qualifications that one has to perform a job well.
I will speak to reporters who still understand that cornerstone of our democracy, that expectation that the public has for truth to be reported. And then we get to decide our own opinion based on the facts reported to us.
Presumably, she doesn’t consider the questions asked by Couric to be in the interests of reporting on the “truth.” Having seen the interviews, I’m having a hard time understanding this.
Is it unreasonable to ask what media influence a candidate’s political positions? Or is the issue that she was asked about foreign policy? Or about what Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade?
Have we reached the point where asking basic questions about American political history, particularly those directly relevant to stated positions, is considered by the general public to be irrelevant to finding the truth?
I don’t want to hire anyone without a thorough interview. It is the media’s job to perform those interviews on my behalf for candidates with whom I won’t have direct contact. If we are to obtain the truth, we need as many interviews from as many perspectives as possible. If the only facts reported to us are ones favorable to a particular candidate, then we will be completely unable to determine the qualifications of that candidate.
So why is it appropriate for political office candidates to choose their interviewers, when candidates for other jobs don’t have this luxury? What makes them so special? And why are we seeing this so much from Republican candidates, particularly Tea Party candidates?
- Sarah Palin: Katie Couric Interview ‘A Waste Of Time’ (huffingtonpost.com)
- Palin Won’t Talk to Couric Again (politicalwire.com)
- Palin: No time for Couric (politico.com)