I just found this very good piece about the Kucinich/Blitzer exchange that occurred in the aftermath of the NH primary. It discusses the cruelty of modern journalism and why coverage sucks so bad.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/01/29/blitzer_loser.html<snip>
And Wolf Blitzer, who has a journalistic mind not just conventional, but wholly conventional, asked Kucinich to kindly explain why he, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, was such a loser. I was folding socks at the time, so I did not write down what exactly Blitzer said. And it was not on a regular CNN show, so the transcript has been hard to find. (Help: If you have it, email me please.)
Lacking the text, I have just the effect of Blitzer's question, the gist-- which is arguably the unit TV communicates in. Blitzer was showing he could be "tough" with Kucinich about the uncomfortable but critical issue of unexplained loserhood. You have to go back in years to your own high school and try to hear Wolf saying what he essentially did say to the candidate that night: why do so few people like you, loser?
<snip>
But then, "why are you such a loser, Dennis?" is asked not for the benefit of the viewing audience. It is not for voters' ears, either. Blitzer asks it for reasons wholly internal to his profession, and the only interest served, I think, is the journalist's. Everyone else loses, especially Kucinich, whose minute of public humiliation may not be Wolf Blitzer's aim, but is the certain effect.
When the press looks for its credibility problems today, it ought to look more at moments like these. To me, it's in-credible, Blitzer's question. The public serice validity I assign it is zero. Most of the audience, most of the time, senses the bad faith in it, whether we "like" Kucinich or not. In a catalogue of low points for the campaign press (which, done well, is an idea for a kick-ass weblog... ) this was one.