Wolf Blitzer is a CNN veteran. Did Wolf Blitzer demonstrate CNN’s values and priorities during his Lynne Cheney interview on October 27, 2006, when he placed agenda above: customary courtesies traditionally due a guest; promises made about the interview subject matter; and, industry standards for professionalism by asking about unrelated issues irrespective of their relevance? It would be remarkable if Wolf Blitzer’s interview did not reflect the culture and values of CNN -- agenda is everything.

About the Children’s Book

Mrs. Cheney was invited on Wolf Blitzer’s show to do an interview about her new book, Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America (interview transcript here). In an interview where the transcript runs over 2,000 words, Wolf Blitzer’s comments about the book consist of about 115 words. He essentially said - the title of the book, the pictures are pretty, and I recommend everyone read it. These generalities are hardly the material for a 15-minute interview per prior agreement. He did not ask his guest a single question about her book. His banal recommendation that everyone read the book lacked conviction; he did not provide any evidence to support his assertion. He demonstrated no curiosity about the reasons, goals, or story behind the ideas for the book. He displayed zero curiosity about the content of the book and no evidence he had read it. He even failed to raise one factual point in the book that might generate a conversation, e.g., an item in the book about his home state that surprised him. Rather than discuss the book, the subject of the arranged interview, Wolf Blitzer went off topic to raise other issues.

Questions About Other Items

Mr. Blitzer raised an issue about a response by Vice President Cheney to a question about a dunk in the water being okay if it would save lives. He wanted Mrs. Cheney to comment on whether her husband was endorsing water boarding. She indicated there was no evidence of that. She mentioned that this type of distortion and other examples of bias by CNN about the Administration were very disconcerting. As an example, she mentioned a number of points from the CNN “Broken Government" series that were distorted and biased.

Mr. Blitzer suggested: “that was probably the purpose of the show, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…”

Note to Mr. Blitzer: This is an amazing inversion of the journalistic principle that you present both sides so your audience can evaluate all the evidence and reach their own conclusion. Also, it is unlikely that any “thinking conservatives” still watch CNN so conceding the charge of bias suggests the purpose of the program isn’t so much to encourage thinking as it is to provide anti-administration propaganda to regular viewers.

The next issue was a recent airing by CNN of a terrorist video showing a sniper killing Americans in Iraq. Mrs. Cheney asked Mr. Blitzer: Do you want us to win? Mr. Blitzer replied: “The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want the terrorists to win”

However, a few moments later when asked why they were running terrorists propaganda, Mr. Blitzer in a series of comments asserted: it was news; denied CNN was running terrorists video; and “we are not partisan.” And then there was this exchange:

LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda.

Next Mr. Blitzer claimed that CNN made it clear it was terrorist propaganda when they released it. Also, that it was a carefully considered decision.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a major lack of clarity here about the role of journalists and the view of the war. In one comment the terrorist video is news and in another comment not only is the video propaganda, but all news is propaganda. In another sequence, “we” want to win the war and then later, “we are not partisan.” Also, the assertion that: “it was a carefully considered decision” is less than persuasive. You might recall, Osama Bin Laden and the New York Times both carefully considered their respective decisions before sending a terrorist team to kill three thousand people and releasing the details of a classified banking program that saved American lives.

Mr. Blitzer next turned to comments that day by the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and James Webb, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, about allegations of sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s book, Sisters. These allegations were offered as a defense to James Webb’s sexually graphic descriptions in his own novels. Mr. Blitzer read from the DNC talking points. He gave no indication he had read Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book from 25 years ago or that he had considered the accuracy of the allegation, before trying to involve Mrs. Cheney in a Virginia election controversy.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a long tradition dating back to the early Greeks about how to treat a guest. Mrs. Cheney was a guest on your show. She was a former employee of your network and arguable a member of the CNN team. Questions about sexually charged issues made that very day when the guest is invited to talk about a children’s book is classless, boorish and in poor taste. Finally, I wanted to send my impressions of the interview:

Final Comments - Quality of Interview

Putting agenda above: courteousness to a guest, keeping a promise about the subject of the interview, and professionalism, actually damages CNN’s brand and your own integrity. In the process, the program presents a small-minded agenda.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: The interview smacked of an ambush. It was apparent that you failed to extend a simple courtesy to your guest like a heads-up that news events compelled you to ask if you could go off topic for a few minutes to get her comments.

The failure to offer this simple courtesy resulted in repeated requests from Lynne Cheney for time to talk about her book, thus wasting airtime. Such a waste of time failed to consider not only your guest, but also your audience, which was subjected to repeated questions by the surprised guest about when you would talk about her book. Your failure to engage at all on her book was inconsiderate. It also demonstrated that your guest was nothing more than a prop for you to raise issues such as the Vice President’s position on water boarding and the sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book as a rejoinder to charges about James Webb’s books. The performance gave the over-whelming impression of extreme partisanship.

You lost control of the interview. You allowed your guest to get the better of you repeatedly in off-topic exchanges. The most memorable points were your answers to questions from the guest. The fact that you are the story should suggest that your methods and performance were less than the professional standard.

Your answers reflected a lack of clarity about the war and CNN’s role as a news service. Consequently providing no reason why any listener should want to invite your program into their living. All in all it was a pretty remarkable performance for one afternoon.