Wampum

Before I examine a witness, either at a deposition or in a courtroom, I plan the examination by thinking about how the specific witness fits into the trial. What does this person know about the events in question? Is there anything that this person might know about the case that is not known by anyone else? What in this person’s background or experience will provide insight into the issues that are important to the trial? There are many, many other factors that are part of the preparation for examining a witness.

That sort of preparation is essential to an effective examination. To just wing it without preparation is unfair to the client. It also wastes the time of the witness, opposing counsel, the Court, and the jury. Failing to prepare is really just inexcusable except in certain, rare circumstances. Preparing to examine a witness is one of the minimum requirements of competency and professionalism for a lawyer.

Journalism is also a profession. I am not familiar with the professional standards of journalism. Is any preparation before conducting an interview part of the minimum standards of competency and professionalism for a TV journalist?

For example, let’s say that a TV journalist was going to interview Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.). How should the journalist prepare for such an interview?

It does not seem difficult to come up with questions that those three Senators are particularly suited to answer.

Stabenow and Cantwell are from battleground states. How the Kerry/Edwards ticket is doing in Michigan and Washington is of particular importance. Stabenow could be asked how John Kerry is doing among the socially conservative, blue collar voters of Michigan’s Macomb County.

George Bush is counting on a solid South. It would seem particularly appropriate to ask Mary Landrieu whether and how Kerry/Edwards can compete and win in the South. In addition, Landrieu won a run-off election in the South against the forces of the entire national Republican organization. Does she have any advice for Erskine Bowles or Inez Tenenbaum?

All three of the interviewees are members of the Senate. The workings of the Senate are a ripe area for inquiry. Do the three Senators support a lame duck or special session of the Senate to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? Do the Senators think that the Senate is institutionally capable of swift action on those recommendations? If not, why not?

I would be interested in knowing how three rank and file Democratic Senators feel about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s unprecedented action of raising money and campaigning for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s opponent.

Republicans are talking about using the “nuclear option” to change the Senate Rules by way of a procedural ploy (thereby avoiding the need for the usual 67 votes to change Senate Rules) to prohibit filibusters of Judicial nominees. What would be the repercussions of such a move?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently pulled a bill from consideration that would have extended the portion of the Bush tax cuts that benefit middle income Americans. Did the Senators support that extension? What was their reaction to Frist pulling the bill? What impact, if any, will Frist's action have on the presidential race?

Frist also pulled a GOP sponsored bill to reform class action litigation in order to consider the same sex marriage amendment. The class action bill had bipartisan support. Did the Senators support the bill? Did support for the bill cause them any trouble with trial lawyers? Did pulling the bill cause a rift between the GOP and the National Association of Manufacturers?

The areas of possible fruitful inquiry are virtually unlimited. A television interview, however, is quite limited in time. Very few questions get to be asked and/or answered.

Via
Avedon, I learned that Chris Matthews had the opportunity to interview the three Senators. According to Media Matters, he used time to ask seven questions about… wait for it… his Hillary obsession.

Here are his seven questions and the answers:

From MSNBC's convention coverage on July 26:

1) MATTHEWS: Do you think she [Senator Clinton] has the patience to try to help John Kerry and John Edwards win the offices they're running for?

LANDRIEU: Absolutely.

2) MATTHEWS: Even if it means she has to wait longer to get the job?

LANDRIEU: Absolutely. She's a team player, and I'd like to say this about Hillary, even though the press always wants to separate her out, she's a team player.

3) MATTHEWS: She's willing to wait her turn?

LANDRIEU: She's willing to do whatever it takes to win, this year.

4) MATTHEWS: This year?

LANDRIEU: This year.

5) MATTHEWS: You think she's really going to go all out for this ticket, even if it means she doesn't get the job?

LANDRIEU: We all are, we're totally united.

STABENOW: Chris, there's too much at stake.

6) MATTHEWS: Senator Cantwell, you've been quiet here. Do you think Hillary Clinton is willing to sacrifice her own immediate political ambitions for the Democrats' success?

CANTWELL: You can never be hurt in politics by being a team player, and she's going to demonstrate that she's one heck of a team player. And no matter what the consequences are, she'll benefit from that.

7) MATTHEWS: When it comes to election night, will she be rooting for Kerry and Edwards even though that means she's got to wait 12 years?

STABENOW: Of course, of course. There's too much at stake.

Why would Matthews ask such a silly question and then ask it again and again and again and again and again and again?

I think the reason is simple lack of preparation. I think he had not done his homework and was not prepared to ask questions tailored to those particular Senators. I think he would have asked the same questions of basically any Democratic Senator, Congressman, strategist, or other interviewee.

What exactly are the professional standards for TV journalists with regard to preparation for interviews? If journalism is to be treated as a profession, there ought to be some professional standards. Reasonable preparation for an interview should be one of those standards.