More of that, please

I'm usually excited to confront insane conspiracy theories, but the so-called "birther" movement is completely devoid of anything worth thinking about. As Outis pointed out below, what little they think they have is nothing more than absurdly transparent lies. It's a convenient paranoid conspiracy for this busy age. No work is needed, just pop it in the microwave and watch it melt. It's the multi-tasker's obsessive fantasy.

But I do want to talk about something that I noticed after this nice take down by Chris Matthews:



Many media figures, most notably NBC's David Gregory, have attempted to defend their behavior in the months leading to Bush's Excellent Adventure in Iraq. Here we have Gregory, after YEARS of soul-searching, coming to the conclusion that there was nothing more he could have done:



I think Gregory is very genuine, he really doesn't know what he could have done better, and that's the problem. Where Gregory and the rest of the press corps failed was not so much in the way they asked questions, but in how ill-informed they were.

Take this now famous interaction between Bill Moyers and the late Tim Russert over a New York Times story reporting that Saddam Hussein had obtained or would obtain nuclear weapons:

BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.

BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

What Gregory and Russert missed that Matthews managed to nail in the birther segment is that you have to do the research. You must be prepared, and the only real way to accomplish that goal is to approach your interviewee as an adversary.

Look, lawyers regularly oppose friends in the courtroom, but that doesn't stop them from being as critical of their opponent as possible. It would be an ethical breach to behave otherwise.

The birther movement is essentially rhetorical tee-ball: the claims are stupid, the proponents are transparent, and the research needed to destroy their laughable ideas is minimal. But notice that Matthews was effective because he showed up with a copy of the birth certificate. There was no wishing for phone calls. They called up Hawaii and obtained the necessary documentation.

Obviously the tone of the debate doesn't have to be so hostile and dismissive (though it was more than appropriate here), but the approach has to be the same. Interviewers need to confront public officials as adversaries, not enemies, but adversaries.

Russert and Gregory failed because they thought the necessary information would come to them, or simply asking open-ended questions would be sufficient to debunk administration claims.

I suggest that the popular media interviewers (Gregory, Rose, Couric, Gibson...etc) invite a birther to their program so they can practice actual critical opposition. After they've gotten fat on that veal, they can work their way through moon-landing deniers and 9-11 wackos until they're prepared to confront a Republican Congressman on global warming. If they can actually challenge those groups with serious facts and unrelenting scrutiny, then they can sit down with someone like Cheney. Until they realize that the only stances worth holding are the ones you can defend against a legitimate opponent, we will be stuck with more limp questions and reporters confused about what they did wrong.