Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NO MURROW. Over at the Politico, Roger Simon takes us on a little trip down memory lane back to 1988, when Bernard Shaw dealt a crushing blow to the Dukakis candidacy by asking the Massachusetts governor, with the opening question of his final debate with George H. W. Bush, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for her killer?" Simon paints Shaw's question as evidence that Shaw succeeded in his self-proclaimed goal to be the Edward R. Murrow of his time. "Bernard Shaw was one tough customer," Simon tells us. "'As reporters, we were not doing our jobs if we don't ask the toughest question possible,' Shaw said." What a crock.
In case you're too young to remember, Dukakis was savaged in the press for the way he answered Shaw's question. With a heavy sigh (Bush had been pummeling him over his opposition to the death penalty), Dukakis explained all the reasons why he opposed the death penalty. He did not raise his fists to sky and scream, "Kitty!!! No!!!" Nor did he say, "Well, now that you put it that way, I guess I'll discard the principle I've held my entire time in public life. Fry the bastard!" Nor did he punch Shaw in the mouth, though he certainly would have been justified. Instead, he answered the question in a manner appropriate to someone who wanted to be president of the United States. Simon tells us what happened next:
In the press room, the murmurs over Shaw's question now turned to mutters over Dukakis' answer. "He's through." "That's all she wrote." "Get the hook!"Journalists then proceeded to say to the public, guess what -- just as we've been saying for months, Dukakis is too cold-blooded and passionless to be president. We were right all along. "A man who shows not the flicker of shock or anger at a truly brutal question about the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife," wrote David Broder at the time, "is not a man who can convey the feelings he undoubtedly has about flag, country, or creator."
The reporters sensed it instantly. Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis. He had not been warm. He had not been likable. He had not shown emotion. He had merely shown principle.
Afterwards, his aides would try explain that he had been sick. He had seen two doctors before the debate. He had a fever, a virus. He wasn't himself.
But while he may have been sick, he was himself. That was the problem.
But Shaw wasn't trying to tease out the reasons Dukakis opposed the death penalty. His question was the worst kind of "gotcha," something with no policy content whatsoever. Its goal, and what it achieved so spectacularly, was to provide the "decisive moment" that would cast into sharp relief the character flaw that reporters had already decided was Dukakis' Achilles heel.
But according to Simon, here's how Shaw described it afterward: "I was just doing my job, asking that question … I thought of Murrow taking on McCarthy. That was the essence of what I wanted to be: Fearless, not afraid of the scorching bite of public criticism. I'm not afraid of being disliked. I'm not afraid of being criticized. In that debate, I did the right thing. I know I did. I know it."
Let's clarify something. Edward R. Murrow took on powerful people who were doing wrong. Bernard Shaw came up with a zinger question to put a candidate in an uncomfortable position, one tiny step above "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Shaw wasn't some kind of modern-day Murrow, he was a hack, the embodiment of everything that's wrong with how presidential campaigns are covered.
There's an unbroken line between Shaw, and Kit Seelye and Ceci Connolly making up lies Al Gore never told, and Jodi Wilgoren musing on John Kerry's windsurfing, and Maureen DowdJohn Edwards' haircut, and on and on and on into this campaign and the next and the next. It's not about substance, and it isn't even about "character." It's about finding what reporters think is the worst thing about a candidate, and picking and picking at it until their evident belief that it should disqualify him from the presidency becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's nothing to be proud of, and if Bernard Shaw thinks there's some parallel between his brand of questioning and what Edward R. Murrow did, he's truly deluded.
UPDATE: Over at my personal blog, I have an update to this post, explaining another example of reporters sabotaging the candidacy of a presidential front-runner they don’t happen to like. In this episode, David Broder and Lou Cannon admit to their crime.
--Paul Waldman
COMMENTS (23)
I always thought Dukakis would have won if he'd simply said that he was against the death penalty, but that he wouldn't share in a public forum any actions he might take on his own behalf.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2007 4:38 PM
Dukakis got thumped. Wasn't close. He'd have gotten thumped even if that question had never been asked.
Posted by: ostap | April 23, 2007 4:48 PM
It's about finding what reporters think is the worst thing about a Democratic candidate.
With the possible exception of Dan Quayle, what Republican politician ever got this kind of treatment?
Posted by: Tpm Geraghty | April 23, 2007 5:12 PM
Three cheers for Paul Waldman!
That said, we all know how Dukakis should have answered. He should have vaulted the press panel's table, punched out Shaw, then chased the rest of the panel from the stage. When he didn't react in that obvious manner, it was clear to men like Simon that he just wasn't fit to serve.
Posted by: bob somerby | April 23, 2007 5:12 PM
Below is the comment I made to this article at Politico, oddly enough when they changed formats overnight my comment disappeared. They can dish it out but can they take it? Guess not
2008 is a very important election.....for America and its people. And as has been all too typical of the puny level of gotcha journalism that the punditry and even regular reporters display daily, you are now asking us to participate in this petty, trivial, dumb pursuit that the press has devolved into.
Between you and Maureen Dowd's pursuit of the catty, inconsequential and inane, it's hard to decide who is more smarmy. There are problems that this country has and the 2008 candidates should be presenting to us something that tries to deal with them. The media in all its formats should be examining them in good faith with integrity and real concern. But she mewls about haircuts and you ask us to descend to gotcha journalism.
Posted by: debcoop | April 23, 2007 5:24 PM
This is bullshit. The answer is not that the press should be polite and deferential. it's that it should never be polite and deferential. But the press in this country respects bullies, because Americans respect bullies.
Dukakis' problem was that he couldn't stand up to an attack.
Liberal intellectuals are the type that got beaten up in the schoolyard as a kid. So was I; but I learned to defend myself, while you're still whining that life isn't fair.
Recently, democrats have remembered how to fight, but most of them would never consider themselves intellectuals, they're just fed up.
You're living in the past.
Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | April 23, 2007 5:35 PM
Bravo.
Yes, it is really, really tough to ask a question like that to the guy trailing in all the polls.
Bernie Shaw's heroism is about as brave as coming out against nun beating.
Posted by: buggy ding dong | April 23, 2007 5:44 PM
I may not be as rough as Seth, but really: boo hoo. Dukakis made mistakes. His candidacy always required missteps on the part of George Bush that really didn't materialize, and it was really for voters to judge that Bush running for Reagan's third term was a lie. Which, sadly, people realized within about 2 years.
I think Shaw's right: he was being Murrow, and not in a good way, but indeed, asking an emotional, leading question that would make Dukakis look like heel in the best of circumstances, short of telling Shaw to go to hell. I think the mistake is buying into the cult of Murrow among TV journalists - he was very good, but also flawed. And much of what he did that defines TV journalism: the "authoritativeness", the "you must trust anchor-man" demeanor - have issues that rarely get challenged, and should be.
But finally, no one's going to win points whining about mean treatment here. The media is so-so at covering candidates in both parties. Know that, and act accordingly. Don't expect love letters, and question everything.
Posted by: weboy | April 23, 2007 5:46 PM
"The media in all its formats should be examining them in good faith with integrity and real concern."
Read a history of the popular press of any country. The press's interests are vulgar and always have been.
Ever see "The Front Page?"
Just because a few people rise above the muck when a real crisis comes, that's no excuse to let down your guard. The press has never been a noble institution.
Posted by: s.e. | April 23, 2007 5:50 PM
I have seen every version of the Front Page. (amended at least every movie version) My favorite was His Girl Friday with Roz Russell and Cary Grant, 1940.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0372942/
To remind you of the plotline in terms of the hanging. The press in this case may have been cynical but the good guys, Hildy the reporter and Walter Burns, the editor were actually on the side of the angels. They actually show us and the world the corruption of the local government as they railroad a poor shmo to the gallows so they can win an election.
The press in this case actually did thieir job. So I reject your characterization of Cary Grant and Roz Russell. They put Roger Simon, Bernard Shaw and Maureen Dowd to shame.
Posted by: debcoop | April 23, 2007 6:04 PM
I don;t think Dukakis lost becasue of how he answered this question. I think the reason he answered this question in the way he did is a symptom of the large reason of why he lost.
Said all that to say, Shaw and this incident was a sideshow, insignificant at best and his inflating this trivial incident to the status of Murrow is a symptom of why the media has become the joke that it is.
Posted by: Eric | April 23, 2007 7:23 PM
Questions about policy preferences, which are often nuanced by the candidates so as not to tick off some important voting demographic, and questions about "record" often lead to some well-rehearsed "yes, but..." and "under the circumstances...." kinds of answers. It's a little unreliable to assume that you can learn some key things about a candidate based on policy pronouncements and yesterday's expedient positions --- I take a lot of that stuff with a grain of salt.
But I consider the Presidency as the biggest CEO job in the world, the most challenging leadership role anywhere. And I DO take into account how those who aspire to it act, and how they sound when in the meat grinder. Dukakis didn't have "what it takes" and that reply was a little window into his personality. He just wilted and shrunk. I don't want a leader of MY country reacting like that.
It is not trivial to speculate about how a person will pan out in terms of establishing and maintaining credibility, and how he/she will handle tough circumstances as THE leader. I think it's the most important consideration for presidential candidates (different from legislators). Right now, I wonder about Edwards based on a number of instances of "is he really whom he wants us to think he is?" behavior.
If the CEO of my company were spending $400 on haircuts, I'd wonder about what kind of person this is --- what are his priorities? Is he too taken with himself, too vain? In the case of Edwards, why doesn't he "settle" for lousy $50 haircut and then drive to the food pantry with a $350 donation?
Posted by: Terry Ott | April 23, 2007 11:23 PM
The best thing about that question: He said an "irrevocable death penalty." There is no such thing as a non-irrevocable death penalty.
Posted by: Rob | April 23, 2007 11:51 PM
I mean, I guess the haircut thing is important. Too bad cocaine addictions and DUIs weren't as important in 2000.
Meanwhile, Baghdad burns, Earth heats, Mississippi infant mortality rates rise, prisoners are tortured in our names.
Dukakis didn't have the sort of overly emotional knee-jerk reactionaryism that this country oh so badly needed then and needs today.
Eric, you're an idiot. I hope you are not on the boards of any corporations.
Posted by: cat farmer | April 24, 2007 9:58 AM
The link for the update didn't work for me. Here's a good link:
http://paulwaldman.blogspot.com/2007/04/bernard-shaw-and-sorry-state-of.html
Posted by: Crust | April 24, 2007 11:22 AM
Bernard Shaw isn't fit to lick Edward R. Murrow's boots. Him comparing himself to Murrow is like Bush comparing himself to Churchill - a complete joke.
Posted by: Realist | April 24, 2007 12:11 PM
Cat Framer,
WTF is your problem. I'm not arguing that the preception of Dukakis is correct, I voted for him, I think he would have been a fine president, but the facts are the facts he lost badly. I'm just saying that Shaw's question isn't what created the perception of him.
Posted by: Eric | April 24, 2007 12:31 PM
Wonder how much Da Prez is paying for *his* haircuts? There's a White House barber, IIRC. How about the other candidates?
And what the hell does this have to do with a candidate's viability/qualifications?
Posted by: John | April 24, 2007 3:08 PM
THE RULES
Not emotional about your wife? Too nerdy.
Emotional about your wife? Too girly.
Republican? Just right.
Democrats are never real men.
Only Republicans are real men.
Posted by: Goober | April 24, 2007 9:34 PM
It seems that Cat Framer's problem is that he typed "Eric" while intending to address Terry Ott's comment.
Posted by: abb1 | April 25, 2007 6:55 AM
It seems that Cat Framer's problem is that he typed "Eric" while intending to address Terry Ott's comment.
Posted by: abb1 | April 25, 2007 6:56 AM
Ah,
That makes sense I was trying to figure out how in the world his comment related to my post
Posted by: Eric | April 25, 2007 6:40 PM
On The West Wing. they had President Bartlet answer a similar question about his daughter in a mock debate and he answered that he'd want to kill the guy himself, but there's a reason why the law doesn't appoint fathers as judge, juries and executioners.
Meanwhile, I certainly don't remember Shaw asking H.W. Bush how he felt about all the innocent people executed under the death penalty.
Posted by: Batocchio | April 26, 2007 2:19 PM