News-Record.com

"A little love for Condi
It's great fun to meet the press outside the Beltway. Remember that loving interview with Dick and Lynne Cheney in Casper, Wyo., in which Lynne answered questions about her baton-twirling days?

Well, last week, Condoleezza Rice felt the love, too, from a reporter from the Greensboro News in N.C., according to the Washington Post. After asking Rice about her thoughts on same-sex marriage, an issue that's irrelevant to the secretary of state's job, reporter Nancy McLaughlin lapsed into gushing: "We love you here in Greensboro. I just wanted to say that with my time."

"Well, thank you," Rice replied. "Really nice to meet you. Thank you. Want to take a picture together?"

"Yeah, sure."

-- Katharine Mieszkowski

Print Email
Permalink [10:28 EDT, June 21, 2006]"

From Salon.com. Wow.

I see nothing out of context in the WP's recounting of McLaughlin's interivew. If anything, the actual transcript is more embarrassing -- thanks to virtually the first words out of the editor's mouth. "As a brilliant and accomplished woman ..." Immediately, the reporter is offering a fawning opinion. Someone less admiring of Rice might have began, "As a dolt and liar -- for your role in leading America into war -- ... "

She "intended to convey respect for Rice's accomplishments"? Why? That is equally inappropriate. The writer and editor obviously have a bigger problem than perceptions.

Mr. Robinson, you only made the situation worse by painting the Washington Post as somehow taking something out of context.

The interview is an odd mix of the extremely embarrassing (the "brilliant and accomplished woman" bit along with the "we love you" parting kiss) comments and very appropriate, even tough, questions.

But nothing is seriously taken out of context.

You should be embarrassed for your reporter, admit it, and leave it at that.

I see y'all's point. That's why I said "slightly out of context." I was just trying to tell readers that her comment about not being disrespectful did not follow Rice's comment about same-sex marriages. It reads that way in Kamen's piece.

Nancy writes about religion for the paper and was covering the Southern Baptist Convention here. She isn't a political reporter and wasn't trying to do a hard-hitting interview. Only a comment or two from Rice actually made the newspaper.

I'm not excusing those comments. Just trying to put them into the context of the day.

Saying “I love you here” to Hillary Clinton would have been just fine with ‘jurnos”.
Because of this leftist bias a lot of people stop reading newspapers.

John, I think we need to cut Ms. McLaughlin ample slack on this. The moment of a leader of national stature visiting a religious gathering is not the time to adopt an adversarial stance. And a warm good-bye is entirely understandable. No harm done.

Absent the anti-war and pro-Bush comments, another view --

Anyone who has listened to Scott Simon's Saturday AM NPR show will notice that he addresses his guests as "Mr. Rather" and "Ms. Rice." Polite and gracious, in an old-fashioned way. Not exactly Anderson Cooper, but what the heck ..

My guess is, with only seven minutes, the reporter had to make a quick, high-impact impression. She quickly spoke the truth, about many African-American folks "loving" Ms. Rice.

Not exactly perfect. But polite and gracious. And the only question -- about homosexuals and Baptists -- was pretty hard-hitting.

That is what is so laughable about the blog-o-sphere and talk-radio. It is easy to speak "truth to power" in your PJs from home. A lot harder, on the street, face to face, with security guards everywhere.

Agreed, Joe. It was clear the reporter was trying to be polite, not advancing any political agenda.

And way to stick up for a loyal, long-time employee, Mr. Robinson. I'm sure all of your staff appreciates seeing one of their own flogged in a public forum.

(And I'm sure we'll get Mr. Robinson's usual denial of the truth - "Oh, I'm not being critical." Yeah, right. Glad I don't have a boss like this.)

Maybe the Secretary of State shouldn't speak at a religious convention.

Maybe if she does, the local newspaper could send a news reporter.

Maybe no reporter should ever tell the subject of any interview ever, "we love you." That way we wouldn't have to keep track of whether they love Senator Clinton and Secretary Rice equally.

Religion, politics or food. A reporter is a reporter is a reporter. Either you're trained to know how to interview someone or you aren't.
But I am willing to accept the reporter's word when she says her "mouth got ahead of her brain."
We make mistakes. Hopefully we learn.

Get real, one of the aspects of attempting to be open and more transparent is that when you screw up you admit it. We screwed up and we admitted it. The public flogging, as you call it, started with the Post's article.

I'd like to point out another concern raised by John Robinson's response.

He portrays his own reporter as someone relatively unschooled in the ways of politics and politicians.

"Nancy [McLaughlin] writes about religion for the paper and was covering the Southern Baptist Convention here. She isn't a political reporter and wasn't trying to do a hard-hitting interview."

The problem, of course, is that religion reporters are now required frequently to deal with issues and individuals central to the nation's political debate.

The Southern Baptist Convention is one of the most powerful political organizations in the country.

This situation emphasises the need for editors to reassess the personnel that they have assigned to the "religion beat."

If you're still putting your soft feature reporter on that sort of story (especially when the Secretary of State of the United States decides to attend) it's long past time to reassess.

Brian Mann
NCPR
Welcome to the Homeland

I am usually very supportive of Ms. McLaughlin, and participate in her blog; but this is, as you say, embarrassing. And who did she mean to be speaking for by saying "we here in Greensboro"? As a religions expert, one would hope she would have a broader definition of "we".

Not that anyone need "hate" Dr. Rice, simply not be all gushy-oo.

Brian, Nancy isn't a soft feature reporter and she's not unschooled. She's won awards for her news reporting and writing. My point was only that her focus with Dr. Rice was not to write a political piece or to get to the bottom of her views on any issue. The suggestion by the Post that Nancy should have pressed harder for a more direct answer from Dr. Rice is fair, but, in my view, off point. Every reporter -- and anyone who has watched television interviews -- knows that a polished politician knows how to avoid answering direct questions. She had seven minutes and several questions she wanted to ask. Sometimes it's better to cut bait and move on when you sense the politician isn't going to answer directly.

Oh, and the Washington Post made you post something on your very public Web site? C'mon, Mr. Robinson, this isn't like correcting a factual error and you know it.

If you had a problem with Ms. McLauglin's story, you should've addressed it privately. Instead, you're beating up one of your employees to win brownie points with your blogger buddies. Really classy.

So your advice would have been to remain silent about the matter despite national publicity from newspapers and Web sites?

It is off the mark to suggest that this is being discussed here because Mr. Robinson started it. I saw the story on Salon.com and came here to find out if it was true. I was looking for somewhere to post a question about it and found that Mr. Robinson had posted about it just 20 minutes before. It was going to come up. This is not just an issue for Ms. McLaughlin. It also calls the newspaper's professionalism and editorial practices into question. I suspect both Ms. McLaughlin and the newspaper have learned from it and moved on. I also suspect that what is being expressed here as concern for Ms. McLaughlin's feelings is cover for argumentation based on the political tilt of the event and the official being interviewed.

It's a tempest-in-a-teapot non-issue. No mistake was made. Judging by the relatively few comments here, there hardly is a groundswell of protest about Ms. McLaughlin's statement. So what if some columnist from Washington makes a crack about one of your stories? It's hardly a big deal and would have faded away almost immediately.

But no - here comes John Robinson, Hero of the Blogosphere to the rescue! So what if you have to throw a employee under the bus - all your blogger buddies will pat you on the back and that's what really matters, right? Hey, maybe that guy from the Washington Post could write a column about you.

Oh, I agree it's a tempest in a teapot all right. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. So, we disagree.

What I can't figure out is why you're turning it into a personal attack. You might note that none of my "blogger buddies" are doing much patting.

This is the type of behavior that makes me doubt whether or not I really want to become a journalist in this country, that perhaps the decrepit state of the news media is beyond saving.

Let me see if I have this straight: Under the guise of transparency, Nancy McLaughlin is getting slashed and burned over a seven-minute interview with someone as slippery as Condoleza Rice. Looking back, could she have handled it better? By her own admission, absolutely -- if only politicians took ownership like Nancy (but that's a matter for another blog). The real question is: Did her perceived feelings of Rice find their way into her story? If they did, I certainly can’t find them.

I’ve read Nancy’s stories for seven years now. The only thing that annoys me about her is the incessant praise I hear from readers – “Do you known Nancy McLaughlin?!?”—who enjoy her compelling and accurate stories. That, and I wish she didn’t hog those writing awards she’s always winning.

Mind you, I’m not trying to deflect criticism from the News & Record (Full disclosure: I work there). We have more than our share of faults to attack. But this ain’t one of them.

Which brings me to my point (talk about burying the lede): Right or wrong, I rarely read blogs. With two kids, a job and a lawn to cut, life always seems to get in the way. When I do read them and they are of this ilk, I feel better about abstaining. Please tell me there are more important topics of discourse out there for bloggers than this one. If not, then at the very least, save your energy and come cut my lawn.

I couldn't agree more, Robert. Blame your fearless leader, Mr. Robinson. He's the one who insisted on "slashing and burning" Ms. McLaughlin.

Um, I'm having a really hard time finding the slashing and burning here, unless you're talking about the big problem "get real" seems to have with John Robinson. If you're that excitable, Robert, maybe you should stick to the grass.

This is the editor's blog, so it seems reasonable to expect it might sometimes address editor-y things. It is a clever argument, though, to use a forum to make a point by deriding your readers for engaging in the same act in which you just engaged. Further discourse here runs the risk of undercutting your "lede", as you called it. Your time is much too valuable for this, and that lawn ain't gonna cut itself.

Mr. Robinson, you are a disloyal cad and a bounder. You are beating up on your reporter so you can score points with the liberal media. If I were McGlaughlin, I would start looking for a new employer, someone with a modicum of loyalty to me as a reporter, not someone who runs like a scalded dog when the Mighty Washington Post gets upset at me.

Let's get real here. The liberal bloggers are upset with the reporter because she offered a smidgen of implicit praise to Condi Rice, a hate figure among lefty bloggers. Were Hillary Clinton the interviewee, and had McGlaughlin done the same interview with the junior Senator from the State of New York, word for freaking word, there would have been no lefties beating down the door of Robinson's blog, nor would Robinson have reprimanded his reporter in any way.

Democratic politicians are treated differently by the media because they are supposed to be treated differently by the media. That is why there would have been no hullaballoo had McGlaughlin interviewed Clinton. The WaPo would not have been angry, Salon would not have taken note, Mr. Robinson would have no need to burnish his credentials with the liberal media by giving a hiding to Mrs. McGlaughlin on his blog.

But here he is, in an act of black treachery, giving his reporter the what-for so that he can look good in front of his liberal editor buddies and so he doesn't get a Write Up at Editor and Publisher.

Indeed, I half-suspect that Robinson would have made sure that McGlaughlin interviewed Senator Clinton the next time she was in the Greensboro area, too. However, there is a different standard for the media when Republicans are interviewed, and that is something we have grown used to.

McGlaughlin was supposed to conduct a hostile interview of Rice, not a friendly interview of Rice. That's where she went wrong in Mr. Robinson's eyes.

Section 9, I say this with all due respect: Virtually everything you wrote is wrong and, I suppose, is why you wouldn't actually sign your name. For the record, I will correct one thing: Nancy's last name is spelled McLaughlin.

Ms. McClaughlin would not be assigned just any old politician, Section9. I doubt Sen. Clinton would be here to speak to a religious convention.

I am amazed this blog has become about an editor defending his duty to address what is clearly a faux pas. Mr. Robinson did not dress down Ms. McClaughlin; he merely concurred with her own assessment of the inappropriate comments she made during the interview (note the "we" in "we love you", hardly a professional journalistic use of the pronoun). He then stated she would not be assigned political stories seems sensible (though hard to accomplish in this day and age when religious "thinking" permeates politics).

Not just the pronoun; it was the verb, too!

John:

I thing you handled this situation well and I can understand Nancy's comments to Ms. Rice.

When I worked in Virginia, Mark Warner came by the office and met with the editorial board. I was a lowly county beat reporter. When he came through the newsroom shaking hands, I got in on it, and shook his hand and said "Good luck."

Some of my colleagues gave me grief for saying good luck, but it was just what came out.

It happens. Journalists are humans first. Its when we try to act like robots that we get into trouble.

John:

I also think you handled the situation well.

Thanks, Jeffrey. Nancy does not feel beat up or hung out to dry, either.

I don't know John, but I do know Nancy, who is a great reporter and genuinely nice, kind and giving person. As a journalist, if I made a mistake that ended up in the WashPost and that folks were talking about in the blogosphere, I wouldn't mind that a response like the one John posted, was offered. Better he explain and we move on, then folks take it and build it into some big deal nothing.