The Diminishing Art of Inquiry

By Sara Pentz

Watching television news programs over the years I have become saddened by how many interviewers use questions as a vehicle for their own political agenda. Today, the art of inquiry in the media has digressed into a platform for speechmaking. Often its purpose is to create doubt, even to dispute facts with which the interviewer disagrees. This behavior allows reporters, and especially TV hosts, to obfuscate the truth, slant it, proselytize, or even forge new versions of the facts to fit a certain agenda. This is a disease that is breaking the back of journalism.

Asking clear and direct questions, without sneaking in a personal viewpoint, is essential to the end result of obtaining clear and direct answers from the interviewees. The art of inquiry requires a solemn promise on the part of the questioner to maintain objectivity.

There are general rules that govern the journalist’s questioning process. They are referred to as the 5Ws: who, what, when, where and why. The most critical of these is “why.” By asking the why, the logic and reasoning of the interviewee can be observed. By repeating this singular question many times, one can observe the depth, breadth and basis of their thinking. This method of inquiry can reveal the interviewee’s character, his inability to articulate his ideas or his deliberate desire to distort. It will reveal hidden agendas, opportunism and deceit—or insight and enlightenment. Question asking is the critical mass of journalism.

The deterioration of question asking by the media has prompted some newspapers, magazines and online newsletters to list offenders. The Media Research Center, for one, recently selected some examples of network TV news question-abuse as documented over several days in late November 2003. Herein are three examples with comment:

#1- "Forty Americans have been killed in the last 10 days, over 400 killed since the war began - more than the number lost during the first three years of Vietnam. Would you concede that things are very dangerous and continue to be extremely messy and difficult in Iraq?" -- NBC's Katie Couric to Ambassador Paul Bremer on Today , November 17 Does Ms. Couric think wars are not messy? Her question is not meant to pursue the truth. In addition, her facts are wrong. Some tens of thousands were killed in Vietnam in that period of time.

#2- "The President said during his remarks to the troops: 'You're defeating terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to face them in our own country.' Now, there's no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Why does the President persist in tying those two together?" -- CBS's Harry Smith to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on the November 28 Early Show. Mr. Smith posits there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11. It is an agenda-filled statement, since facts to that effect have not emerged one way or the other. The second part of his statement about the President ‘persist(ing)’ is a deliberate slur. The appropriate question to Ms. Rice might have been, “Do we know (or how do we know or when will we know) that by defeating terrorists in Iraq, we will not have terrorism in our country?”

#3- "There's obviously great symbolism to this trip, because it is important for a Commander-in-Chief to come and see his troops. But so is there symbolism in that things are so unstable that he had to sneak in, in darkness, that he never left the airport, that he could only stay two and a half hours. Isn't there symbolism in the fact that it points up that not much has changed in eight months?" -- ABC's Charles Gibson asking Condoleezza Rice about President Bush's Thanksgiving Day trip to Iraq, on the November 28 Good Morning America. Mr. Gibson has consciously described the trip in words that clearly belittle the President’s action and, by innuendo, undermine the trip and its intent. In fact, the President went to Iraq to see the troops and boost their morale. Because of the war the trip was clearly dangerous.

Each of these statements is based on the premise that the media’s role is to teach, not to inform. Members of the media, in general, believe that the public cannot be trusted to make appropriate judgments, since the average mentality, they say, is that of a 12-year-old. By exercising the 5Ws, the opinions of questioners can be held in check. Of course, this presupposes integrity and commitment on the part of the journalist.

I recently reread the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists as a reminder of the purpose and responsibilities of this profession. The document warns: “Deliberate distortion is never permissible. Examine your own cultural values and avoid imposing them on others. Support the open exchange of views, even views you find repugnant. Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

No honest journalist can read that document and listen to TV hosts without a sense of shame at the diminishing art of inquiry.

(Journalist Sara Pentz has worked as a TV reporter/anchor and has written for local, regional and national magazines and newspapers.)