Responding to Vox’s interview with President Obama, Politico Magazine’s Jack Shafer accused the outlet of serving up softballs, noting: “I’ve seen subtler Scientology recruitment films.” There is little doubt Shafer is right, and yet, isn’t it interesting that — despite the absence of contentious questioning — President Obama still managed to say something controversial? (I’m referring to the president’s agreeing that the media is guilty of hyping the threat of terrorism.)
A more aggressive interview very well could have been less revealing. And I think there are a couple reasons for this. First, as Dave Weigel notes, sometimes so-called softball interviews yield information because the source, thinking he’s talking to fellow travelers who agree with him ideologically, “falls into comfort zone.”
Let’s be honest, there are certain things which people on both sides of the political spectrum inherently believe, yet hesitate to discuss in mixed company. On the Left, this includes the notion that terrorism isn’t really that big a deal (global warming is probably a bigger threat).
The amazing thing is that, despite being an experienced and media savvy politician who is well aware a conversation is being videotaped, human nature pushes us to want to please our immediate audience. And so, on the margins, it’s probably more likely that a liberal president would admit to some controversial liberal thing while talking to a liberal journalist.
But there’s another reason why softballs sometimes get results. If you just give people room to talk, and if you’re genuinely curious and prod them with questions, sometimes they sometimes say interesting things.
Now, this obviously won’t work with someone who is a hostile witnesses. If someone is committed to parry your questions, spin, or spout talking points, then you probably have to interrupt them or press them. But if someone is willingly submitting to an interview, then badgering them probably makes it less likely they will say something interesting, and more likely they will hunker down in a defensive posture. Last week, I interviewed “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on my podcast. It was a really fun and interesting interview, that also managed to make a little bit of news. But if you go back and listen to the interview, all I had to do was ask the question (and then get out of the way).
I’m not suggesting that interviewing a prominent member of the media is the same as interviewing the POTUS. It’s obviously not. The latter would be even more nerve-racking. On one hand, you want to be respectful; on the other hand, there must be a huge temptation to show your machismo — to avoid having the Jack Shafers of the world call you a wimp. Good luck finding the right balance. After all, presidents must be held accountable — must be forced to answer the tough questions —
On the other hand, I do suspect that the president is just like any other subject, which is to say that there is no one single formula for getting him to open up. (Speaking of “softballs,” effective pitchers must use a combination of fastballs, curveballs, and changeups to keep batters off balance. The notion that a hardball interview will always get results is naive. It might make the interviewer look more heroic, but it might not be the most productive method.)
I don’t think Vox was consciously attempting to rope-a-dope the president, or lull him into a false sense of security. I don’t think this was some brilliant strategy, but I do think that the interview worked, by virtue of the fact that it got him to reveal something interesting that we always suspected he believed. People want to get inside the head of the most powerful man in the world, and understand his worldview. And I think his answer to the question about the media hyping terrorism helped confirm suspicions that conservatives have long held.
So this really isn’t a debate about lapdogs versus watchdogs. Some interviewers are inherently cerebral and respectful (I’m thinking Charlie Rose and Terry Gross), yet still challenge their guests. These hosts often get amazing and unpredictable answers. Other interviews are necessarily more aggressive (“DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?!?”), and sometimes they have to be. But the bottom line is doing what works. And the fact that each side can boast conflicting cliches — “You’ve got to fight fire with fire” but “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” — kind of proves the point.