Apologies of the Week

So Chuck Roberts personally apologized to Ned Lamont for calling him "the Al Qaeda candidate" last week. His explanation is a teachable moment for the current state of American journalism, however.

Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up. The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups — Al Qaeda type, to use Cheney’s words — would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate."

Roberts is basically saying "I was just trying to do my he-said she-said job and strike a false equivalence, but I got carried away." Why is it OK to acknowledge such fringe attacks, that connect a primary victory in Connecticut with how terrorist groups feel about it, in the first place?

This is how journalism supposedly works today. the "journalist" tells his subject the most horrible things the other side says about him, and asks him to respond. How does that help any American? How does that deliver information to an electorate? How is that even interesting? It's simple, lazy reporting that reveals nothing and costs nothing (and that's why it's so prevalent). What we need less of are shows that aim for the "Candidate X called you a douchebag, comment?" format, and we need more shows that take a substantive look at issues that affect our lives. Some in the media moan and wail about name-calling, but the entire cable news format is predicated on it.