Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Karen Hughes was stunningly effective. She should have been the public face of the Bush Administration all along--and I mean that in a bad way for my beliefs. On Terry Gross, she did a remarkable job of sounding intelligent, informed, and candid while spinning practically every question and remaining on message. But she didn't sound like she was lying (as so many Bush Administration people do, even when they're apparently telling the complete truth). So I suppose it's good for what I believe in that someone this effective was hidden for this long. But she may make a large difference in the election.

NPR is dead-centrist, non-controversial, and they have a knack for hyping a lot of dead-end non-news in order to reach a broad range of donors. Although I do listen to it, I stopped listening to Gross a long time ago. They would never "hook" anyone. They are too tangled in their donor base. What bothers me is the dead-end news; the sensationalistic emphasis. They are masters of putting a hot topic up, and then spinning it around so that it floats off into the nethersphere, epitomized by the inane musical interludes. One thing I can say about politics in Europe is that they have an actual spectrum of parties, from left to right, rather than just liberals and conservatives, so their political news is much broader anyway.

It's not just Gross and NPR, of course. There's *no* incisive interviewing going on anywhere in the broadcast media anymore (if there ever was).

In trying to understand why this is so, I found much value in Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves To Death". Though written nearly 20 years ago and focused on TV rather than radio, his points and argument are still depressingly on target today.

I still like Terry Gross. She's by far the most listenable interviewer on air. And I believe in the importance of not only being fair and balanced (there, Fox , I said it!) but also doing good radio so that people tune in to begin with. Will Al Franken do good radio? If he doesn't, his point of view won't matter. I listen to Howard Stern from time to time (at least I admit it) soley because he can be really entertaining and listenable and at times challenging.

Stu's point is well taken and appropriate--true--hardball journalism has been intimidated into oblivion, and it is not even an ideal anymore--I asked the Communications person at the Com. Col. and, even as a colleage, he declined to discuss it with me--(Walters/Castro was cute, though). For Ed, all I can agree with is that Gross has a seductive voice (gets your attention with her cadence), and I think she knows her jazz, but I don't get a sense of any further substance (plus she appreciates the Sopranos far too much for my taste). sorry.

Laura Flanders has a good chapter on Hughes in her book Bushwomen.

I'm going to try and go and ask Hughes a question when she is at A Clean Well-Lighted Place for Book Tuesday in San Francisco (2 weeks after Laura was there). The problem is which question to ask and how to make it pointed enough to not let her dodge it.

I'll probably ask her about this column on Bush cutting funding to the Reproductive Health for Refugees Consortium which will result in the deaths of many women.

Karen Hughes' interview with Wolf Blitzer has bothered me all day. It was such a blatant lie when she was asked about Bush's military record and she replied that she was proud he served his country six years in the National Guard, and how the National Guard is such an intregal part of the War on Iraq. How stupid does she think we are? She knows the National Guard back in the Vietnam era was a place rich boys went to avoid service. She knows full-well the National Guard is quite different today. Then she shamelessly discussed her Dad's service, as if Bush were comparable.

It's spin like this that just makes me crazy. How does she think any one, on either side, can respect her and believe anything she says. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the interview after that disingenuous remark could be believed.

It's discouraging to listen to the lies.

Carla, I thought I was the only person listening to the Blitzer/Hughes interview today that was saddened by her comments. The blatant insinuations about Kerry and atrocities in Viet Nam were crude. Although we have millions of American military brats, after listening to Karen I was certain only her dad showed up for work in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Her dad and George II. And you are also correct about the Air National Guard during Viet Nam. One had to have big political connections and big bucks for the Country Club assignment. Lucky for Karen's dad that people like John Kerry were willing to help him out in the trenches. Sounded like a campaign speech to me. I thought she was in Texas teaching her son to drive (a deeply rewarding mother/son bonding experience) and today she advises us that she was also in Afghanistan and came home courtesy of the Air National Guard. One hopes she was presenting George II's strong position on women's rights to leaders in Afghanistan that can actually enforce the concept of women's rights. Current reporting indicates that a glimpse of ankle still merits a beating. Or perhaps she she was checking out burhka manufacturers in preparation for our next fashion trend. Outsourcing overseas doesn't require the small tag we used to see "Made with pride in America". The interview was distressing. I appreciated reading your concerns.

The real issue here is why does any one care what Karen Hughes has to say in the first place? How much longer does CNN think that the American people will buy this as journalism? Was she ever elected to an office by the American people? Is she serving the country in the role of a public servant? No. She is an off again – on again publicist for George Bush – that’s it. I’m not the least bit concerned that she is “offended.” Quite frankly, I have bigger issues to deal with, and so does the Bush administration.

Poor Karen Hughes. It's truly sad to think that
anyone would crave basking in reflected limelight
so badly they would stoop to becoming an apologist
for a couple of draft-dodging ex-drunks. (Or at
least ONE is an "ex".....not so sure about the
other.)

I was very dissappointed with Wolf Blitzer, much as DW was with Gross, for not taking Hughes to task for some of her statements. Namely, her assertion that post 9/11 "All Americans have a greater love and respect for human life" etc. etc. in relation to the women's march in DC. Is that not the perfect time to introduce statistics on US, foreign, and civilian casualties? When confronted with US troop casualities only, Hughes replied "of course, we mourn every life"; I love this administration - they have a contrived and insincere answer for everything.

While I agree that Hughes was an effective speaker, I thought she was an equally obvious liar. Her responses were littered with Administration buzzwords and catchphrases that for me have worn mighty thin. How about real, articulate answers and thoughtful debate instead of sticking to the White House script and using predetermined language as placeholders?

I have to agree with Jude regarding Karen Hughes. She and Dick Cheney, and the others from the Bush camp are creating a situation where the president is allow to remain above the fray. They are dragging Kerry down with these non-issues and smears so that George can remain presidential. We cannot forget that he sanctions their behavior and is no better than they are.