Rutherford and "The Question"
Cross-posted at IllinoisReview.com
When I mentioned to State Senator Dan Rutherford that I expected to receive tough criticism for publishing a 3-part personal interview reflecting positively on him and then not asking “The Question,” the senator asked me if I would like to know the answer to “The Question.”
“Sure,” I said. “I’m curious . . . ”
Continue reading "EATON: Rutherford and "The Question”" »
22 comments:
Isn't an interview usually about the subject and not the person conducting the interview? Didn't they teach that at journalism school?
On a personal level I have always liked Rutherford going back to our ISU days. That said I know way too much to support someone that would compromise his integrity on a question that is no one's business.
And this relates to being SOS how exactly?
Anon 12:03, settle down. The piece that was linked was not the interview itself, but a commentary regarding the interview. Try actually understanding what’s going on around you before getting sanctimoniously bent out of shape about it.
Anon 12:22, I understand where you are coming from with that, but consider this: He was in a tough spot, and he did what was arguably the best he could do in a bad situation. You are right, it really is no one’s business. The question should not have been asked, and he should have pointed that out. But the reality of today’s media climate is that refusing to answer it would only have made something that isn’t anyone’s business an even bigger part of this campaign. What would be the virtue of that? By simply answering it and putting it behind him, he allowed the race to stay focused on the proper issues. To that end, I think it’s more appropriate to say that he sacrificed his integrity for the public good. And for that, I think you should cut him some slack.
Your quote on your blog is the new height of hypocrisy:
It isn’t my business (or anyone else’s) to know gory details about a person’s sexual history. I asked "The Question," and he respectfully answered.
If it isn't your business, then you never should have baited him with the issue. And when he graciously asked you if you'd like to know, if you meant the above quote, you would have said, "it isn't my business".
But you do all consider it 'your business' and that's the big problem I have with right-wingers.
(And no, I'm not either)
grand -- I understand fine, but thanks for your views anyway, even though no one asked for them.
Maybe you should become more familiar with Fran before you start posting yourself, you ignorant fool.
GOP is right. We ask a hell of a lot of our Politicians today.
I think there is a real good case to be made for an alliance between Gay Rights activists and the Republican party. A good case to be made for an alliance between them and the Christian right for that matter.
Look at what's going on in China and you can see lots of ground for common cause or the public executions of gay teens in Iran. There is no reason for Republicans in Illinois (or Democrats) to tear themselves up over these so called social issues. There issues of social justice too if people just calm down a bit over them and look at some part of the world were tyrants still hold sway.
Dan seemed kinda cagey about this, that surprised me somewhat. Does anyone know how his campaign is going? What are the major issues he's focusing on, given that J. White is very popular.
anon 12:03/1:47 (per Rich’s request, please make up a name so that it is easier to identify you in the future):
Here is the address to view the interview:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2005/12/life_is_a_serie.html#more
Regardless of what you think of Fran, I think you’d be hard pressed to make the criticism that this interview is about the interviewer more than the person being interviewed.
So I can only guess that you didn’t understand that the post you were commenting on was not an interview, but rather a commentary (despite it being rather clearly identified as such). Your criticism of it was based on it being an interview, was it not? Perhaps I was harsher than I needed to be in my post, but I get irritated by people who feel the need to unnecessarily expand the scope of criticism against someone. You may have a genuine beef with Fran and her journalistic skills. But the particular criticism you posted was erroneous…..and I took it upon myself to assume that it was so because you were in such a hurry to make Fran look stupid that you didn’t even take the time to figure out if your chosen criticism actually made sense. And so I was offended, not as a stalwart supporter of Fran's, but as a blogger/commenter who puts a great deal of thought into whatever I write.
Let's stick to the topic everyone...why even post something like this, it just keeps people talking about what he does in his own time and place.
I would think Republicans would appreciate privacy...well, except those at the WH who are listening to our phone calls.
Cheers
Oh come on now, Anon 2:24, people at the White House have been listening to our phone calls since Bobby Kennedy was Attorney General.
Funny how Republicans are quick to denounce Democrats, yet when their hand is caught in the cookie jar they use the "they did it too" defense.
I'll take lies about sex over lies about WMD any day and twice on Sunday.
Cheers
Anon 2:49, I'm not sure I follow you. Are we talking about the recent NSA "scandal" or the unproven, yet often promoted allegation that the President of the United States used intelligence he knew to be faulty to justify a war?
I was making a joke in my 2:43 comment. But from what I understand, I do not believe that the President broke the law with the NSA wire-taps. And, for the sake of perspective, let’s try to remember that Bush’s actions – even if they were “illegal” - were motivated by a commitment to protect Americans from terrorist attacks, while Clinton’s were meant to protect himself from personal embarrassment.
I’ll take a President who is willing to bend the law to save my neck over a one who is only willing to do it to save his own any day.
Wow….how did we get this far off topic?
grand -- Fran says that she expected to receive "tough criticism" for publishing the interview...see, it's about her...what's so hard to understand?
Merry Christmas
Anon - let me explain this one more time. The piece you are criticizing Fran for making about herself and not the subject (in which she discusses the criticism she anticipates receiving) is not an interview - it is a commentary by the interviewer. Your criticism was based on it being an interview, and thus makes no sense.
If you want to impugn her journalism skills, you are more than welcome to do so. But, please provide actual examples of her betraying the craft…… don’t just make back-handed, glib critiques based on a misunderstanding of the particular form of journalism being employed in the referenced piece.
But for now you are really limited to these options:
1) Go back and revise your critique to say “Isn't a commentary usually about the subject and not the person conducting the commentary?” – but that still makes no sense, because it is a perfectly acceptable journalistic practice for a commentator to commentate on their own personal experiences.
2) Claim that you were really criticizing her performance as an interview in the 3 part interview linked to the commentary in question – but, again, I think you’d have a hard time making the case that the interview was more about her than Rutherford.
3) Admit that you jumped the gun and ended up making a nonsensical criticism instead of investing the time and demonstrating actual lack of journalistic skill on Fran’s part.
Again, I’m not here because I really care about defending Fran in particular. I just get mad when people take the easy way out. I get mad at Democrats who attack the President for being from a wealthy, influential family (as if there were no prominent Democratic Senators and/or presidential candidates for who the same is true) instead of actually citing specific and legitimate grievances with his policies. I even get mad at my fellow partisans when they call the governor stupid names instead of taking the time to articulate the many ways in which he is a failure, and our candidates could do better.
Do you get it now?
You're hopeless...but it's been fun wasting your time.
wait, rutherford is gay? who else isn't out?
How interesting that there really are people who have nothing better to do with their time than sit around and think about crap like this. Get a real life.
I've known Dan for 20 years and never once felt any need to ask him that question and have zero respect for people who think it's any of their business. Dan is a fine public servant who works hard at his job, campaigns hard, and provides good constituent services.
Shame on those among us who believe those kind of issues are the measure of a man or woman and at the same time profess their Christianity. As to the author and the interests of your "conservative allies", find new allies. You must feel a need for a shower every time you are around your current ones.
Typical Fran Eaton ...like with Jack! ... willing to sellout beliefs for a quick smile. No followup, no nothing. A reporter would have followed up on Rutherford's support of bills that are pro-homosexual and where does that stem from, from a downstate legislator in a conservative district. Like Jack!, Fran will give the "Free pass" with a cute answer and a nice face when answering. If you want to write as a journalists, then when you ask the "question", be prepared to press on the reason WHY you ask. Between Fran and Jill Stanek, the credibility of conservatives has been hurt. Remember Jill defending Jack! with those insane talking points ...
It comes down to doing the homework and following trough, no matter if the "question" is tough ... I guees a quick smile and an even quicker answer will work every time.
Too bad. Rutherford would have been much interesting if he did say he was gay
What is sooooo amazing is all the comments from the wingnuts. They are willing to saddle up with folks like Cal "Sweaty Palms" Skinner, but wring their hands about Rutherford. Another clear reason why wingnuts will neve rule.
Anon 2:16
Wingnuts as you call us; RUN EVERYTHING!!! Congress The White House, The majority of the state houses and general assemblies, the suprem court
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Just sayin':
The 3-part interview with Rutherford is rather long, but Fran did ask him about his vote on the Human Rights Act. He explained why he voted for it.
It's pathetic to attack the messenger (in this case, the interviewer). Maybe you didn't like the questions she asked, but calling her a sellout is ridiculous.
Post a Comment