Is IPTV Cable News Lite?  Iowa Press Fails 2nd District Voters in Loebsack/Miller-Meeks Interview

by Trish Nelson

Last night on IPTV's Iowa Press, 2nd District Congressman Dave Loebsack and challenger Mariannette Miller-Meeks were guests.  

Watching it, I was dismayed and frustrated by the interviewers' opening series of questions about the race instead of the issues.  Using corporate media talking points and reiterating invented media narratives, they tried (unsuccessfully) to press Congressman Loebsack about the so-called alleged “enthusiasm gap” and wanted to know if he had a fear of being identified as part of the “establishment” that “people are tired of” – as if this is a proven fact.  Not mentioning the actual fact that Democrats are beating the GOP in absentee ballot requests, the interviewers O. Kay Henderson, Dean Borg, and James Lynch, seemed intent upon sticking with cliches rather than asking questions that would enlighten and inform the public about the issues at stake in the election.

To illustrate, check out this question from O. Kay Henderson re: health care reform:  

Using the word “unpopular” four times for one question, Henderson claims this is a “proven fact” twice, and adds in the buzzword “enthusiastic” just in case she didn't use enough media cliches in one sentence. [Editor's note:  According to Pew Research, the more media coverage the health care bill got, the more confused about its benefits people became…see Pew Research on Health Care Reform Coverage Validates Need for Media Reform].

Borg picks up the bogus theme and Loebsack displays his talent (probably after years of teaching undergrads) for finding positive, sensible responses to lame questions.  

This next exchange between Dean Borg and Loebsack, is another great example, in my view,  of how even neutral journalists adopt assumptions that are repeated throughout the media, with no basis.  Congressman Loebsack declines to try and answer an unanswerable question here, and instead appropriately points out his priorities as a congressman.  Not to be denied though, Borg makes a second, failed, attempt to talk about this “anti-establishment” idea.  Why the interviewers think these are necessary or even interesting questions, is completely beyond me.  

BFIA to IPTV:  What defines an “establishment” candidate is that candidate being supportive of the status-quo.  You're not an “establishment” candidate just because you happen to already hold office. But I guess there is just no place for nuance in today's journalism.

Speaking of no place for nuance, there also is apparently no place for details:

No details!  Because we would not want to add any depth of understanding to a discussion of the issues!  It must've been a slip, that she actually said it out loud. 

Here's another one:  James Lynch uses “enthusiasm gap” or “lack of enthusiasm” three times in one question, and is also able to slip in “anti-incumbent.”

It is understandable that candidates try to stay on message, repeating the same point that they want to emphasize, but why would reporters need to do this?

The interviewers made repeated attempts to get Loebsack to be apologetic about the health care bill.  Congressman Loebsack had to say more than once that he was proud of passing health care reform. 

But it wasn't all one-sided.   Miller-Meeks was asked what made her a legitimate candidate, seeing as how she lacks money.  While she may not be favored to win, or perhaps has no chance to win, not having as much money as your challenger does not de-legitimize your candidacy, and I really wish they would quit that line of questioning.  How much sense does it make to invite a candidate on the program and then ask questions implying that that same candidate is not legitimate? 

After wasting about half of the show pushing corporate media sound bytes, they gave it up, as Loebsack diligently stayed on message, declining to waste precious air time being silly.  His response to every cable-news style question put to him was essentially, “I'm most concerned about doing the right thing for the people of the second District and making decisions that will benefit the people of Iowa. That is what they want me to do, and that is what I care most about.”  Eventually, the ace reporters moved on.

To give credit where credit is due, the interviewers did get around to asking questions about issues, touching on don't ask-don't tell, the GOP's Pledge to America, floods, earmarks, and eggs, but there was very little time left.  When Miller-Meeks tried to accuse the congressman of being disingenous about the war in Afghanistan, saying he had said he was “completely against the war in Afghanistan,” Borg didn't let her get away with it, pointing out that the Congressman never said that.  He appropriately asked Loebsack if what she said was true, and Loebsack simply responded, “No, it is not.”  No defensiveness, no explaining, the message being, her transparent attempt to mislead deserves no more of a response than that, and voters can decide for themselves or look it up.

For her part, Miller-Meeks seemed to be pandering to the independent vote and yes, even the left. She tried to act like the health care bill was faulty because it didn't achieve universal coverage!  As if she would have been for universal coverage and would have gone against the rest of the GOP to work for it?  Seems unlikely.

She also tried to blame Loebsack for the recession, pointing out that when he took office the unemployment figures were lower than they are now, two completely unrelated facts.

Congressman Loebsack, true to form, wisely used his time to say as much as he could (as fast as he could because there was virtually no time),  about what he has done for the people of the second District while in office.  Here are some of his remarks.  

But don't believe me.  Check it out for yourself.  The program will air again on Sunday morning on Iowa Public Television at 11:30 a.m.  Or you can view the video at IPTV.org