http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110712,00.htmlSunday, February 08, 2004
By Eric Burns
“Hard-hitting.” It’s an adjective. And, if you’re a journalist, it’s a compliment.
<snip>
Wolf Blitzer may or may not be a hard-hitting newsman by temperament, but he played one the other day on television. The performance was a success. It was also a disgrace.
Blitzer, a CNN anchor, was interviewing Dennis Kucinich about his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. The campaign has been less than successful. Kucinich is a single-digit candidate in a double-digit competition, and a low single-digit candidate at that.
It is, thus, perfectly reasonable for a journalist to ask Kucinich about his desire to dwell in the White House, and why he soldiers on despite unanimously unimpressive showings in the polls and primaries. It is not reasonable, however, to attack the man, as if his persistence were somehow a felony. He is not a “get” like Michael Jackson, accused of molesting children. He is not a “get” like Robert Blake, accused of murdering his wife. He is not a “get” like Pete Rose, accused of compromising the integrity of the national pastime. Kucinich is, in fact, not a “get” at all.
But Wolf Blitzer got him, in a performance that suggested Blitzer is far more of a bully than a journalist. Blitzer asked Kucinich why he is such a loser. Not why his campaign does not seem to be attracting more support—a fair way to put it. Not why his poll numbers are not higher—a fair way to put it. Not whether he thinks the odds against him are too great—a fair way to put it. Blitzer asked Kucinich why he is such a loser—a self-serving, arrogant, cruel way to put it.