TWO SILOS: Ruhle asked Harris some sensible questions!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2024

But then, along came Hurt: With apologies for the delay caused by last week's connectivity meltdown:

As we noted yesterday, a New York Times "Political Memo" appeared online on Thursday, September 26. The lengthy piece had been written by Rebecca Davis O'Brien, a highly accomplished, experienced journalist and a good, decent person to boot. 

Two days later, Davis's piece appeared on the front page of the newspaper's print editions Times. O'Brien's lengthy memo involved Candidate Harris's interview style. Headline included, its nugget statement read like this:

POLITICAL MEMO
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.

[...]

In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal.

As we noted yesterday, we tended to agree with each part of that assessment. We thought, and we continue to think, that Candidate Harris does have a lot of strengths. Also, it seemed to us that her early interviews, few as they were, hadn't been especially strong. 

As happenstance had it, Harris had sat for a new, high-profile televised interview one day before the "political memo" appeared. She had spoken with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle, whose first question went like this:

RUHLE (9/25/24): Madam Vice President, you just laid out your economic vision for the future. But, still, there are lots of Americans who don’t see themselves in your plans. For those who say, "These policies aren’t for me," what do you say to them?

Was that a softball question, or was its premise—Lots of Americans don’t see themselves in your plans—possibly slightly awkward? 

Had Ruhle lobbed an easy opening question? We could teach it flat or round! For the record, there is no doubt that Ruhle will be voting for Candidate Harris this year, not for Candidate Trump. But her background is in business and economic issues, and her next four questions went like this:

RUHLE: Over the last four years, there have been tremendous economic wins. And you have just laid out a big plan. But, still, polling shows that more—most likely voters still think Donald Trump is better to handle the economy. Why do you think that is?

[...]

RUHLE: Then let me ask you about taxes, because lots of people will say, "I don’t like Donald Trump, but he cut my taxes. He didn’t just cut corporate taxes. He cut individual taxes."

Now, that expires next year. And there’s some people confused, saying, "I don’t know what’s going to happen next year."

Under a Harris administration, at what income level should someone expect their taxes to go up? And that state and local tax deduction that’s currently capped and matters to a lot of people in blue states, are you going to lift that cap?

[...]

RUHLE: [When it comes to] expanding that child tax credit—or you mentioned housing before, giving that extra money for a first home. If you can’t raise corporate taxes, or if the GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do that? Do you still go forward with those plans and borrow?

[...]

RUHLE: Bill Gates just said it this week. If he was in charge of taxes, he would have paid more. But how do you find that line to make sure corporations are paying their fair share, but they’re not leaving our country?

For the full transcript of the interview, you can just click here.

Were those questions easy or hard? Plainly, they weren't "gotcha" questions—but the questions were thoroughly substantive, and they were perfectly proper. 

To all intents and purposes, "issues" are no longer a serious part of (what's left of) American campaign journalism. For whatever reason, Ruhle was asking about basic policy issues this day.

The interview ran just over twenty-four minutes. For MSNBC's full videotape, you can just click this.

By our count, Ruhle posed sixteen questions to Candidate Harris that day. You've just seen the questions with which she began—unless you were watching Charlie Hurt, who appeared on the Fox News Channel one night later and told several million American citizens something entirely different.

Before Helene washed our Internet connections away, we ourselves had started to answer this question:

Who is Charlie Hurt?

Today, we return to that question. Back on September 29, we showed you this basic overview from the leading authority on the fellow's career:

Charles Hurt

Charles Hurt (born 1971) is an American journalist and political commentator. He is currently the opinion editor of The Washington Times [and] a Fox News contributor...

[...]

Hurt was The New York Post's D.C. Bureau Chief and news columnist covering the White House for five years.

From 2003 to 2007, Hurt covered the U.S. Congress as a reporter for The Washington Times before leaving to join The New York Post. In 2011, he rejoined The Washington Times as a political columnist. In December 2016, Hurt was named the opinion editor.

National Review editor Rich Lowry described Hurt as, "an early adopter of Donald Trump populism." Hurt has written numerous opinion pieces lauding Trump since the 2016 election.

The New York Post and the Washington Times and the Fox News Channel oh my! There is no question that Hurt tilts right—but as we also said at the time, Charlie Hurt, like everyone else, has a perfect right to his views.

For the record, we also said that Charlie Hurt seems like the nicest guy in the world. The problem here is quite different:

Hurt seems like a very nice guy—and as with everyone else, he's entitled to his political views. But as a major American journalist, is he entitled to the mockery he directed at Harris that night—mockery he based on a pile of invented "facts?"

As a major journalist, is Hurt entitled to invent a pig-pile of bogus factual claims? Is he entitled to broadcast those bogus claims to millions of people? 

Journalistically, we'd say the answer is no—but then, we're talking about the Fox News Channel, an entity we would regard as a cancer on the democracy, imperfect thought our democracy has been.

In fairness, Hurt may not have known that he was making absurdly false claims this night. But absurdly false claims are a basic part of the grain which is stored inside the Fox News Channel's silo.

Nice guy that he may seem to be, Charlie Hurt misstated the facts, in a ludicrous fashion, before millions of viewers this night. Elsewhere, this sort of thing could get a journalist fired. On the Fox News Channel, behavior of this type is a basic part of the game. 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Over at the New York Times, you won't be apprised of such facts. Journalists at the New York Times seem happy to live within their own silo. They will virtually never report or discuss what's happening over at Fox.

 

Here's more of the background concerning what happened that night:

As noted, the interview with Stephanie Ruhle took place on Wednesday, September 25. A full transcript was published by MSNBC. MSNBC also posted a videotape of the entire session.

There was no doubt about what had been said—unless you were watching Fox News. One night later, Hurt appeared on the primetime "cable news" program, Gutfeld!

In the program's initial segment, the program's host and his four guests staged a pseudo-discussion of the Harris/Ruhle interview. Along other insults to the American project, Hurt was soon saying this:

GUTFELD (9/26/24): Charlie, it seems to me that she didn't answer a single question. But would the campaign regard that as a success?

HURT: Oh, I think without a doubt. I think that "First, do no harm" is definitely their motto here. But I mean— You know, Trump used to talk about making Biden take a drug test. He should start ordering a drug test for this woman.

Nice guy that he seems to be, Hurt quickly suggested a drug test for "this woman." For the record, this followed the host's earlier claim that Candidate Harris seems to be "a wine drunk." (For our report on that topic, click here.) 

As we've routinely noted, this is the kind of garbage can this channel opens each night. Immediately after his suggestion, Hurt's factual breakdowns started to occur. 

His flagrant misstatements came thick and fast. Soon, this manifest journalistic flyweight—a typical Fox News Channel performer—was telling the public this:

HURT: And then she sits down, Stephanie Ruhle...sits down and does this interview with her, and the first question was about, Had you ever worked, actually, at McDonald's? 

We've already shown you the actual text of Ruhle's first five questions. But then again, this was the Fox News Channel, engaged in its ongoing "revolt of the masses."

Will Candidate Harris win this election? We have no idea! But as we survey what's left of our floundering nation's public discourse, an unconnected line from Frost frequently floats through our heads:

The Road Not Taken 

[...]

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence...

Our floundering nation has taken itself very far down a very bad road. It will take ages to tell that story, if it ever gets told at all. 

Most likely, it will also take ages to find our way back up that road, assuming we're able to do so.

Part of that story involves the Fox News Channel and other such Red American orgs. Part of that story involves the supreme, self-protective silence maintained by the New York Times (et al).

Those two highly influential news orgs inhabit two different (landlocked) silos. It's going to take a very long time to tell you the story of those two silos—and when we do, you can be sure that the news won't travel far from here.

Candidate Harris seems like a wine drunk! President Biden should make "this woman" take a drug test!

 

Judged by any traditional journalistic standard, those assessments were offered by a pair of defectives. Over at the New York Times, and also inside similar silos, the finer people have agreed that we the people must never be told about what happens over on Fox News.

It will take ages to tell that story. We're planning to take our own sweet time as we try to do our best.

Tomorrow: Charlie Hurt continued to speak. Also, he comes from good stock...