It's a good thing that political reporters have crusty exteriors
and are not worried about winning any popularity contests, because the
general public could give two hoots about them.
You want proof.
Did ya see the GOP presidential debate at Oakland University
earlier this month?
You knew candidate Herman Cain was going to get a question on the
sexual harassment chain around his neck and sure enough, twenty-one
minutes into the thing, there it was.
One of the reporters decided not to hit it head on but to come in
the from another direction. The question was phrased under the heading
of "Character."
Nice try. Some in the audience would have none of that. They
didn't like the issue, they didn't like the question and they sure as
heck didn't admire the correspondent for having the nerve to ask it.
Unfortunately that's what real reporters are supposed to do, but
that doesn't mean the audience has to like it or understand it.
Mr. Cain, of course knowing the question was coming, was ready
and slugged it out of the park as the crowd erupted in jubilation.
Undaunted, one of the panelists, now desperate to get something
out this exchange, left the Cain dry hole and tried to drill one with
Mr. Romney by trying to drag him into the dialogue.
The question was hardly out of the reporter's mouth when the
audience booed again confirming that the original boos were not an
aberration.
Candidate Romney, of course, did not take the bait, and suggested
that Mr. Cain would address the issue and "he just did."
And with that, two minutes of debate time was eaten up, the
reporters sensing this was a waste of time, moved onto other issues.
So why the intense maligning of working journalists doing their
job?
They don't provide enough space in this blog to get into that.