I am not Joseph Welch, nor was meant to be
We have about 2.5 million listeners, and from those listeners we receive about 100 emails a week, to the WaitWait [at] npr.org email account. We assume, in the way people do, that everybody who writes in represents, say, ten or 100 people who felt the same way but weren’t moved or motivated enough to write. A gratifyingly large number of those correspondents just want to tell us how much they like us, or suggest stories or guests. But some, of course, have axes in need of grinding, and this week we heard from about a dozen people who were upset that we hosted Lynne Cheney last week. Some were upset we were nice to her, and failed to challenge her about her husband’s record. Others were upset we had her on at all. Two or three told us that even though they enjoyed our show, they would never listen again because we had been gracious to Mrs. Cheney.
Today, I wrote a letter to those listeners, and you can read it yourself after the jump. Your thoughts on what we did, and what we should have done, are welcome in comments.
Thanks for writing to us about our recent interview of Lynne Cheney. We got about a dozen such letters from listeners, some taking us to task for not challenging her more strongly on her views, or those of her husband; some condemning us for having Ms. Cheney on at all.
We feel strongly that our primary role is to entertain, and as such, we try to make sure that we never fall on one side or the other of the partisan divide. Thus, when we satirize politicians or partisan issues, we try to make sure that we treat each side equally, and the same goes for the political figures who join us as our guests. A number of conservatives wrote in to complain about our “softball” treatment of Valerie Plame Wilson the week before; our response was, as it is to you about Ms. Cheney, that we try to treat everyone with courtesy.
I feel strongly that if our show has any value in today’s media marketplace, it’s that we provide a respite from the constant verbal warfare going on elsewhere. There are plenty of places to tune in to hear political figures interrogated; we want to give people — our listeners and our guests — a break from that.
I have no illusion about our minor role in the national discourse. But we’d rather be kind than significant, and we’d rather defuse prejudices than play to them. If our engaging Ms. Cheney (or Ms. Plame, or anybody else) makes them seem more human and accessible, even to their ideological enemies, then maybe we’ve done a small good thing.
Thanks for writing, and I hope you’ll keep listening… pretty soon, we’re bound to have someone you like on as our guest, and you’ll be pleased with how kindly we treat them.
All best,
Peter Sagal
Host, Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me
November 13th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I think you guys are just incredibly courteous and intelligent to treat Lynn Cheney like you would any other guest. That’s one of the things I enjoy about Wait Wait so much, even though I despise her husband’s politics. What? She has a sense of humor? She’s actually, dare I say, human?
-AlexL
November 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I agree with Alex and with you, Peter. I find Dick Cheney to be one of the most despicable figures in modern American politics, and I’d put his enabler/wife maybe one rung above him, if that. Still, as Peter says … the show is primarily about entertainment, and it should be. I think it would tarnish the show’s image considerably if you purposely avoided guests like Lynn Cheney, or if you had them on only to ridicule or challenge their politics. You did the right thing, and the show’s better for it.
Just promise me you won’t invite Dennis Miller to be a guest! (Kidding … um, sort of.)
November 13th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
That was a beautifully worded response, well wrought and even tempered. (Well tempered?) As someone willing to claim that I get most of my news from Wait Wait and the Daily Show, I appreciate the fact that your show is truly fair and balanced. And very, very funny. (Of course, if I truly got my news from Wait Wait and TDS, I wouldn’t really get any of the jokes, would I?)
My mother was good friends with the Cheneys many decades ago in Wyoming, and listening to the show this week was the first time where I think I understood how such a thing could have happened. So if for no other reason, I thank you for that. Although, in the interests of full disclosure, I should also state that my mother was a crack shot. Just saying.
I just don’t understand the mentality of someone who despises a politician or celebrity to such a degree that they’d genuinely stop listening to a radio show just because everyone was polite and gracious. Seems to me that if people were a little more gracious, the world would be in better shape all around. (If I start to sound like an old Coke commercial, please shoot me.)
November 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I really liked that you were gracious to her. If you’d had her husband on and hadn’t challenged him just a little I might have been bothered. One of the things that draws me to “Wait Wait” is the fact that you find the ridiculous in things without being unkind.
I do wonder though if it was intentional that Valerie Plame and Lynne Cheney were on right in a row…?
Keep being gracious and funny. You guys are awesome and the show (I listen on podcast every Sunday) puts me in a good frame of mind to face the insanity that are Monday classes.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
You are not journalists, I don’t think. I don’t think that it is your job to ask questions or pose follow ups.
You are not moral leaders, so it is not your job to scold or admonish.
You are humorists. It is your job to mock. And I think that you did that.
Moreover, she is not he. If you had the Dick on the show, perhaps you should have pressed him. But you did not, and so you did not.
You did great. Well done, as always.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Once you’ve decided to invite a guest onto your show, I firmly believe that your kindness is very significant.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Your explanation is what I understand of the role Wait Wait… gives itself. Sometimes I wonder if the challenge to be funny or to take oneself a little less seriously on your show isn’t specifically telling in a way that other appearances won’t be. (You may get self-selecting guests, but even so.)
As for listeners who write to you with this point — their frustration may flow from the perception that there aren’t “plenty of places to tune in to hear political figures interrogated.” At least not thoughtfully, on substantive issues. The deeper fear is that a “serious” news source may have the same perspective, to be thankful and respectful for access. Taking that for whatever it’s worth…
Great show, enjoy it immensely.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I agree with your letter, the nature of your show is to entertain, by pointing out the absurdity in all directions. I hope that when you say “we try to make sure that we treat each side equally,” that you mean that you mean that you look equally askance at both sides and are willing to mock either should the opportunity arise, rather than “we made fun on person on side x, therefore the next person we make fun of must be on side y…”
The only time that I might expect that you would deliberately challenge a guest is if they out-and-out lie to you and your panel on the show. Shows like yours seem work best when there is no doubt as to the veracity of what is said on the show. In that light, Mrs. Cheney did not make assertions on your show, (other than the jab at Justice Ginsberg,) and there was nothing, really, to challenge. the nice thing about the not-my-job segment is that it allows you to avoid the matters that would lead to serious evasion and lying. (Though you did needle Patrick Fitzgerald endlessly with scooters…)
One of the reasons that people like David L. (above) and myself say that we get our news from sources such as your show and the Daily show, is that we don’t doubt that you and Stewart are equal opportunity mockers, and do not fabricate. The danger is in having people believe that you are an easy mark, and a place to lay on some propaganda. (I do note with some interest that Mrs. Cheney has appeared on both your shows in the last couple of weeks, (though I suppose if you’re on a book tour, you try to sell to those who actually read books.)) The difficulty is that since you *do* have a reputation for telling the truth, (no matter how ugly that truth,) so it comes to appear that if something passes unchallenged on your show, than it *must* be the truth…
One thing that makes your show great is the fact that you appear to actually be intellectually curious about the subject on which you are speaking. A great and repeated disappointment in much of the ‘news’ today, is that interviewers seem to care so little about the subjects that they are reporting on, where you (and Stewart) seem to *actually* want to know the answer to the question. The greatest frustration that I have when reading or listening to public figures is that rarely does one get challenged on assertions made in regards to matters of substance, it all seems so “pro forma.”
I think the last thing I ever want to hear myself say as I listen to your show, (which I do ‘religiously’ (and repeatedly) on the podcast, (haven’t had a TV or radio in 5 years…)) is “What did they just say?” without hearing one of you say it at the same time. Being a lefty myself, I just hope it isn’t always just P.J. O’Rourke who says “Now wait a minute!”
I do hope you enjoy doing the show as much as I enjoy listening to it. It is definitely something I look forward to every week.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Peter, I think there’s one problem with your entire thesis. The show is clearly topical and political in nature (it’s based on the news after all). So in choosing guests, something I assume you have the luxury of doing these days, you make a statement whether you intend to or not.
No, I’m not advocating you only make political statements that appeal to me. But in a segment called “Not My Job”, you could easily avoid hot button political figures from both sides.
Now would the result of that perhaps impact your ratings a bit? Perhaps but I’d opine that you would probably gather in mostly the same crowd week to week if you had guests on during that segment no one had ever heard of. After all, the show is you and the panelists. The rest is window dressing (not in the trivial but in the sense that it’s fodder for your show).
Personally, I would have much preferred you not have Cheney on your show. If that also meant you would have to pass on Valerie Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald, well, that’s a shame (because they were both funny) but it’s small price to pay for not having to listen to Cheney or Noonan.
I don’t want you to stop being nice to people. I think that mocking politeness WWDTM is well known for is one of its endearing characteristics. I don’t think you should have run Cheney through some rhetorical wringer. That’s not what WWDTM is about (sadly, it’s not what many shows are about unless we’re talking about tipping waitress or hair styles). I do think that if you want to be nice to everyone, regardless of who you book as a guest, then perhaps you deserve some of the more critical commentary made.
I think you also have to factor in the general media context in which your show exists. You state, and quite correctly I think, as Jon Stewart does, that your show is entertainment, not journalism or news. Fair enough, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think listeners such as I (maybe just me, who knows?) are going to enjoy hearing you and Peggy Noonan or Lynn Cheney politely banter back and forth. Enabling these people who have done so much that there is to be critical about to have a “safe” place they can push their latest book or just polish their personal reputation a bit is repugnant to me. As you correctly point out, there are plenty of places where politics is argued about, that’s not what WWDTM is for. Then don’t have the guests that should be seriously”interrogated”.
In a different time, in a different political climate I think you would be entirely correct in your letter above. However, your show is not broadcast in a vacuum and given the context, where even your own network spends “serious” time “reporting” how one candidate supposedly stiffed a waitress during a campaign stop, you need to realize that sadly, yes, who you have on does have an impact.
Or, you can continue to believe that WWDTM does operate outside the media altogether and continue to feature some guests pumping their latest book or shining up their personal credentials who do not deserve a venue for that.
I’m looking forward your reading your book soon. Your interview on Fresh Air was wonderful. I enjoy your show though I’ll admit, I just stopped the podcast once you introduced Cheney and didn’t bother with the rest of the show. That’s a shame and it’s my loss.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:34 am
whoops… I should point out that #8’s peter (me) is a different peter than the one who hosts this site… (I will alter my ‘handle’ a bit to make sure the disconnect is more clear.) Sorry, I wasn’t thinking about that, it was not my intent to mislead. (from the content I’m sure this was clear, but better safe than sorry.)
November 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I was with you all the way until the line “if our engaging Ms. Cheney (or Ms. Plame, or anybody else) makes them seem more human and accessible, even to their ideological enemies, then maybe we’ve done a small good thing.” One can, of course, carry that point to absurdity, with everyone’s tipping point varying considerably, even among typical WWDTM listeners. I would consider Lynne Cheney, Valerie Plame Wilson, Peggy Noonan and such to be in the “B-List” of controversial guests. Lynne Cheney is “controversial” primarily because she’s married to Dick (who’s definitely on the “A-List”) and goes around telling everyone what a gee-whiz swell but misunderstood guy he is. I don’t mind if you have B-List controversial figures on the show, so long as you’re balanced overall in who you have on, and both kind and gently jabbing when necessary. But what if you decided to have Ann Coulter on the show while she’s promoting one of her diatribes? OJ Simpson? A well-known white supremacist? Michael Vick? (Not that any one in the foregoing random list would actually get and accept an invitation to WWDTM). There is really no need, using the WWDTM forum or otherwise, to make any of them “more human and accessible, even to their ideological enemies.” So I think you need to temper your “can’t we all just get along” comments somewhat…
BTW, my whole family, including actual teenagers, loves the show, especially the live tapings. Speaking of the live tapings, we have attended many of them when the ad-libbing went on and on and on, nearly always with hilarious results, only to find that most of the “good stuff,” even whole segments, was edited out for the broadcast on Saturday mornings, assumably because of time constraints. But the podcasts shouldn’t be under the same time limitation, are they? I know it’s probably way too time consuming to edit two different versions of the same show, but…occasionally couldn’t you just leave in a little bit here and there for the podcast??
November 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
In the interests of fairness, I think you need to have all of Giuliani’s wives as guests on “Not My Job”.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I very much appreciate the fact that you treat a guest graciously and with consideration whether or not you agree with them or their politics. One of the many frustrating things over the past 10 years has been the loss of civility in public discourse and the inability to ‘agree to disagree’.
It seems like it might have been possible in the past for two politicians (or even two civilians) to say that they have very different views on how to solve an issue (and in fact might vehemently disagree), but they could still acknowledge that they both had the country’s welfare at heart. Now if you disagree about how to go about something, you’re by definition evil or the enemy. It’s impossible to have a dialogue or try to bridge differences in that context.
So please continue to welcome those you agree with and those you don’t on your show. We need all the examples of civility and graciousness in public life as possible.
Becca
I wonder if John Stewart received similar feedback after recently having Lynn Cheney on his show. I remember appreciating the way he avoided rudeness and attacks, even though she said a couple of things that he clearly had to bite his tongue about. What is it our mothers taught us? If you can’t say something nice…
November 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
And to the point that several made above about not giving some of these people a chance to look good…
I missed the WWDTM (and haven’t had a chance to do the podcast yet) so I can’t speak to that, but I actually found that Lynn Cheney’s appearance on John Stewart, while “humanizing” her, actually made her look worse. She said several things that made me realize how different our values and views of the world are and how much I dislike what she and her husband (and this whole freakin’ admin) stand for, but that wasn’t because John was attacking her or being rude. Something about being hoisted by one’s own petard…
Maybe the “Not My Job” segment doesn’t give as many opportunities for the “true” personality to shine through
November 15th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Becca and Brian … I happened to see a rerun of Chris Matthews appearance on TDS, courtesy of the writers’ strike, and I thought it was great the way he turned the tables on Matthews, in a joking fashion, but he gave him grief nonetheless. Matthews, though, deserves whatever he gets; he’s in the business of being a hostile interviewer, so I was glad to see Stewart push back a little, albeit with humor rather than rudeness. But that was a unique situation. And TDS is a political show, whereas WWDTM is not, so he can adopt a more challenging attitude toward a guest without being inappropriate.
It was nice to see Matthews squirm a bit, though!
(Oh, and in case Adam’s reading this … we’re still stickin’ to the union!!)
November 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Regarding your choice of politically “hot” guests: my modest proposal is that you limit guests on “Not My Job” to clergymen. Clergymen are humble, unassuming, inoffensive, and best of all, we don’t really know much about stuff that matters to most people, so picking a “not my job” kind of category would be real easy. Just a thought.
Rabbi Doug
November 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
I don’t normally comment to Blogs, but here goes…
I remember thinking (while listening to this edition of the show) that not only did you seem to go easy on her, but that she seemed ‘nice’. Then I remembered who she married. Then I remembered that she is entitled to her own opinions, and that it seemed brave, in a way, for her to be on the show. I say that because I know some folks on the right who believe NPR is the antithesis of Fox News. (Personally I think NPR is oftentimes the only reality in news media. But maybe that’s just me.)
The reality is you guys simply did something some people seemed surprised by– you treated her with respect. It would be too easy (and far too common) for you to have set her up and then made her look bad.
I , for one, will tune in and support you guys all the more for it.
Besides, let someone else point out fallibility. Like so many others have said, you guys are entertainment, and having her on and the fun and laughs that were had just show how good you guys are at what you do.