Centerpieces

Not just being contrarian, but I'm on the reporter's side here. We take unfair hits all the time.  If the reporter had been "polite," his question would still have been perceived as "biased." So why not go balls to the wall and show a fiery, cantakerous press? Publish and be damned! Don't publish and be damned!

Too often politicians and officials have made statements that go unchallenged because reporters don't know enough or have been out-maneuvered in raising questions.

This is about providing information so the people will know the truth.

[Johnson] came upon that thin line between challenging respectfully and debating with the news source. Our profession requires us to raise questions, follow-up and report what we've learned without becoming emotional. Much of the public will see [Johnson's] act in cutting off Romney as rude. I think that was rude. The public needs to know that we are professionals in the search for truth.

The incident yesterday is a reminder that the campaign is hard on all involved, not just the candidates.

I'd say the reporter was fairly rude and Romney was pretty polite (though the reporter had a good case on the merits and made it in the article).

These days when the tape is running and the videos go viral, I think reporters do well to toe the line between aggressive and obnoxious. People don't like us much in the best of circumstances without digging extra holes.

Having watched the encounter on MSNBC, I have to agree with Rick. Calling out Romney like that was immature. And I found it disturbing that the reporter just stayed on the floor during the entire conversation until after Romney left. Finally, if the governor was wrong, then why isn't AP putting that in the story?

Frankly, I think this episode was best summed up by the bystander who called the reporter "rude."

What a shame that an important question was undermined by the behavior of the questioner. His timing, his tone, his physical posture made him an accuser instead of an interviewer. The issue he was raising seemed valid enough to me. How disappointing that he undercut his own credibility in asking it.

 
If Johnson had held himself back, he would've gotten a better quote -- which would have supported his contention that Romney is misrepresenting himself -- because Romney was in the process of saying he doesn't have lobbyists "tied to my" campaign. But Johnson interrupted him, and you'll note in the story, and in the video, Romney was able to justify his statement by repeating the phrase that he didn't have lobbyists "running" his campaign.

Clearly Johnson lost his temper, and he did a poor job of asking questions rather than making assertions.

But I can identify with this. I covered a politician in Mobile, Ala., who would constantly dodge and weave, and it was nearly impossible to nail him down on a point. You really had to engage in deposition-style interviewing to pin him down. But I didn't do it at events, I did it after events or on the phone. It got pretty heated at times, and the interviews often veered into semantic discussions, with me trying to define what he meant by certain words and him trying to be as vague as he could.

It's frustrating when you hear a candidate say the same stuff over and over again and you know what he/she's saying isn't true, or that it's an obfuscation. Sometimes you want to shout out, "that's not true!" but you never do. I think this is especially frustrating for reporters on the campaign trail because they follow the candidates from one stage-managed event to another as they say the same thing, and the reporters are struggling to report something new.

On the CBS video you can see a woman (a Romney supporter I assume) go up to Johnson and say he was rude. The exchange made the media look bad, though I agree with his larger intent -- to cut through the b.s.

Hurray for Johnson. I've been in his position, following presidential candidates of both parties and hearing them make statements that deserve to be challenged. He challenged. He may not have been very smooth about it, but he was brave enough to do so in an era in which there is too much fretting about how people will react to such a challenge. If he had phrased his remarks as a question, it would have been even better.

But let's remember what this event was -- a supposed press conference. It's the exact right place for challenges to false or misleading behavior by a candidate. What I found more offensive than the exchange between Johnson and Romney was the videotaped encounter in which Romney's flack told -- ordered, in fact -- Johnson not to challenge Romney. Someone should have told the flack to stick it in his ear.

There are times when it's courageous and justified for reporters to do what Roy says. And there are ways to do that when it's called for.

In this situation, at least based on what I say in the video and in Johnson's story, I don't think either position holds water.

Johnson was unprofessional in his method, and he should have known that what he was doing would become the focus of almost all the reporting on the press conference rather than the substance of what Romney might say. Therefore, the journalism itself was diminished, the journalistic purpose of Johnson's probe was sidetracked and the journalist and journalism take a hit that didn't need to be taken.

I can think of a half-dozen ways Johnson could have posed his question rather than the way he did -- ways that could have produced meaningful journalism.

If I were an editor at AP, I would have a purposeful, substantive conversation with Johnson about what happened. I would do some background work to find out if there are other instances where Johnson's methods came into question. I would then make some decisions on what, when and where Johnson covers stories, especially on the campaign.

Journalists need to do more questioning and less regurgitating of the statements candidates make. If journalists can't get at the truth, then how can the public be expected to obtain it? So, I applaud Johnson in this sense.

I'm not so sure, though, that speaking out repeatedly at a press conference the way Johnson did was the most appropriate course of action. It would have been better if he had questioned Romney after the fact instead of calling him out in the middle of his talk. Reactions like Johnson's can unfortunately perpetuate the problem of perceived bias in the media.

This discussion serves as a good reminder of the heightened responsibility journalists have during a political campaign season -- a responsibility to get beyond horse-race coverage and dispel rumors, shed light on truth and strengthen democracy through solid reporting, features like Politifact, editorial endorsements, etc.

Reporters following campaigns must be willing to challenge the candidates when they make questionable or untrue claims. Johnson may well discover, however, the unfortunate fallout of the "Sam Donaldson effect" -- which occurs when a good reporter's confrontational approach becomes a bigger story than the issue he raised.

And consider this: Johnson undoubtedly will be known from this point onward as the reporter who had the shouting match with Romney. It will be very difficult for his readers not to assign bias to his stories. That's unfortunate.

He was raising a good question.