John King of CNN showed how a serious journalist fairly asks the tough questions
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2009 - 6:52am.
Media
Hello Everyone:
While I realize individual opinions of journalists will vary from person to person and that no journalist is perfect, I definitely think that John King of CNN is the best reporter as well as the most credible journalist in the cable news business today when it comes to covering all sides of important issues in the news!
John King promised to hold both Democrats and Republicans accountable on his new show back in December when it was announced:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/08/sitroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
Bloodbath in Baghdad; Reaction to Obama's Cabinet Picks; Illinois Governor Declares War on Bank; Pakistan Cracks Down; Fighter Jet Crashes into Homes
Aired December 8, 2008 - 17:00 ET
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "There's a new administration coming to town. We view it as a great opportunity to use our reporters, to use our political team, to do the news maker interviews and analysis here in Washington; but, also, at this exciting time of a new administration, to hold it accountable -- to go out in the country and see if the promises are being kept; to look at Barack Obama and the new Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- through the eyes of the people who were involved in this election..."
So far, John King is delivering on this promise in my opinion!
John King in my opinion set an excellent example of how a serious journalist is supposed to fairly ask the tough questions to both Democrats and Republicans alike when he interviewed White House Budget Director Peter Orszag on March 8 and Dick Cheney on March 15:
1) Here is the YouTube video link of John King interviewing Democratic White House Budget Director Peter Orszag on March 8 where I think that King caught Orszag in some inconsistencies about earmarks and where King professionally and fairly pressed Orszag for consistent answers to his questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9z5fLU_nfI
John King's Thick-Headed Interview of Peter Orszag (6:55)
floatingcapital
March 08, 2009
Here is the CNN transcript of the key portions of this interview with the good questions that John King asked Peter Orszag:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/08/sotu.01.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH JOHN KING
Interview With Peter Orszag; Interview With Eric Cantor
Aired March 8, 2009 - 09:00 ET
JOHN KING, HOST: "Welcome back to "State of the Union." We continue our conversation now with the White House Budget Director Peter Orszag. I want to get to the specifics in a second, but there is a huge spending bill -- got held up in the Senate a little bit -- but expected to make it to the White House by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The president has said he would sign it. It is full -- maybe 8,000, 9,000 of these so-called earmarks, many of them, people would say, pork- barrel spending. I'll get to the specifics in a second. But the central premise of the Obama campaign, yes or no, was to change the way Washington does business?
PETER ORSZAG, WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DIRECTOR: Look, the earmarks have come down significantly, 75 percent..
KING: That's not an answer to the question. The central premise of the Obama campaign...
ORSZAG: I understand. Let me just say, look, we are like -- this is like your relief pitcher coming in into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game. Next year, we will be the starting pitcher and the game is going to be completely different. If you look at what we have done, for example, in the Recovery Act, no earmarks. When we are in office and we're working with the Congress to write those appropriations bills, we are going to be much more transparent, we're going to be moving towards the vision the president put forward. But right now, again, we're a relief pitcher in the ninth inning. Let's get this done, move on to the business of attacking the problems that the economy faces and investing in education and health care and energy.
KING: Well, you say move on. But the American people don't like some of this. I want to show some of what's in this bill. There's $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa, $819,000 for cat fish genetics research in Alabama, almost $200,000 for the Buffalo Bill historical center in Cody, Wyoming, $238,000 for deep-sea voyaging program for Hawaiian youth, $209,000 for blueberry production in Georgia. Let's assume for the sake of this conversation they are all worthy projects. At this moment in time, when 651,000 Americans lost their jobs last month, unemployment is as high as it's been since 1983, should federal dollars be going to those projects at this moment in time?
ORSZAG: Look, would we have written this thing differently? Absolutely. But we face a basic choice here, which is this was negotiated last fall. It's been baked in. It includes some important initiatives. For example, money to fight health care fraud, funding for education Pell grants, funding for health care. So we face a basic question, is it uglier than we'd like? Yes. But again, this was negotiated last year. We think we should just move on.
When we are engaged in the fiscal year 2010 in the appropriations process, it's going to look a lot different.
KING: We'll hold you to that promise. But I want you to listen to candidate Obama. This was one of the central premises of his candidacy, the reason he said he was unique among the presidential candidates was that he had not been here long enough to be poisoned by Washington. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We're not going to change anything if we don't change how business is done in Washington. That's one of the reasons that I decided to get in this race in the first place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: He didn't say, I'll start in six months. He became president on January 20th. I understand the political argument. You have so many balls in play. You want to save some chips down the road. But he could get some of this out of here if he just went to the Rose Garden and looked the American people in the eye and said, I'm sorry, you have to take some of these things out. Americans are facing incredibly tough choices. This cannot happen.
ORSZAG: And it will not happen when the president has the full legislative and appropriations process in place.
Look at what happened under the Recovery Act, where the president led and there were zero earmarks. That is what -- we are going to fulfill the president's vision here, making earmarks much more transparent, but, again, I want to come back. It's like we are stepping in in the ninth inning. You can't just redo the whole game.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: Sometimes a pitcher comes in in the ninth inning and changes the game, changes the game!
ORSZAG: But you can't, you know, change the rules of the game and go back to the earlier innings and rewrite...
KING: You can change the dynamics of the game, though, Peter, you can.
ORSZAG: I'm going to come back and just say, again, if you look at where the Congress is, this was negotiated between the House and the Senate. Would we like to get the earmarks down further? Yes. Would we like to make them more transparent? Yes. Will that happen in the future? Yes. We have been in office less than eight weeks. This was negotiated before we came into office. Our view is rather than -- you know, Washington is rife with -- we need a little less talk and a lot more action. We need to get this out of the way and move on to serious business that will include next year, when we are in charge -- when we are -- when you can hold us responsible, a much different ball game.
KING: I'm not sure people who voted for Barack Obama or against would say we can't hold you responsible for the first lead-up (inaudible).
Let me try the analogy this way. If I ran for mayor on an anti- crime platform and there was a gang that was out there robbing banks, do you think I could look the people of my city in the eye and say, well, the gang robbing the banks started that last year. I'll get any new gangs that come in this year. You say it's the ninth inning, but you're responsible for what goes on in this country. He could stop some of this.
ORSZAG: That's -- I'm not -- I don't think that that's correct. I think at this point, given where we are in the process, we either need to sign this legislation, even though there is lots of stuff in there that we may not support, or we have to forgo, you know, those key investments in combating health care fraud and education and energy.
This, again, I mean, I'm sorry I keep repeating myself, but this was negotiated before we came into office and we don't think it's possible to step in and dramatically change it.
KING: We'll continue this conversation another time..."
It is very clear to me that John King did everything he could to try and get consistent answers from Peter Orszag about earmarks so I think it was okay for him to move on to another topic after this exchange.
Outside of Joe Scarborough or David Gregory if this was done on Meet The Press, I cannot think of one news anchor at MSNBC who would ever be this tough on a Democratic White House Budget Director.
Every question that John King asked and every point that he brought up to Peter Orszag was very fair in my opinion. This is an excellent example of how a serious journalist fairly asks the tough questions!
2) Here are the YouTube video links of where John King interviewed Dick Cheney and very fairly asked him the tough questions on March 15:
Dick Cheney - CNN State of Union - John King part 1 (9:57)
cheneywatch
March 15, 2009
Dick Cheney - CNN State of Union - John King part 2 (4:36)
cheneywatch
March 15, 2009
Dick Cheney - CNN State of Union - John King part 3 (10:00)
Dick Cheney - CNN State of Union - John King part 4 (5:55)
cheneywatch
March 15, 2009
Dick Cheney - CNN State of Union - John King part 5 (4:47)
cheneywatch
March 15, 2009
Here is the CNN transcript link of these videos with some of the tough questions that King asked Cheney:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/15/sotu.01.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH JOHN KING
Interview With Dick Cheney
Aired March 15, 2009 - 09:00 ET
JOHN KING, HOST: "Just about every day I assume you're reading the newspapers now that you're out of office, the president says, well, we have got a lot to do but it's not my fault, I inherited a mess. Did you leave him a mess?...
KING: There are people I assume watching this interview right now, and people in this town who would say, why should we listen to you? And they would say that because of the context of the Bush administration numbers.
They would say, you know, what did you do when you were in charge? And they have some numbers to back up their case. And I want to show some to our viewers When you came to office, the unemployment rate in the country was 4.2 percent, when you left it was 7.6 percent.
The number of Americans in poverty when you arrived, just under 33 million, over 37 million when you left. The number without health insurance, a little over 41 million when you came, over 45 million approaching 46 million when you left.
And you came with a budget surplus of $128 billion and in the final year, the budget deficit was a record $1.3 trillion. So what would you say to someone out there watching this who is saying, why should they listen to you?...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use them against our friends, against our allies, and against us.
I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: All comments you made over the years, Mr. Vice President, and we are back with our interview with Vice President Dick Cheney. All comments you made over the years about the Iraq war that proved to be quite controversial.
I do not want to relitigate the past six years. You've been asked about these things, you've answered these questions many times, and people out there either accept those answers or many people are infuriated by those answers, as you well know.
But I do want to ask this, because we're in a unique position this morning. You're out of government now. When all of those statements were made, you were trying to build up public support for administration action, you might have been in a reelection campaign, you might have been heading into a new presidential campaign or a debate in Congress about spending or about withdrawing the troops and timelines. That's all gone. You're out of government. I just want to ask you now that you're free of all that, and you're free of worrying about what you say and could it hurt George W. Bush, because you were the vice president of the United States -- is there anything that you wish you could have said during those debates or in response to those controversies that you feel free to say now?...
KING: Do you think it would be a lot easier, though, to make that case if you hadn't made and others hadn't made those statements before the war? Because many were, they believed that this was not going to be so hard, and this is where we are, nearly six years later. Six years, the war has cost $657 billion, and that spending will continue. More than 4,200 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and more than 31,000 U.S. troops wounded, and 63 percent of the American people now think this war was a mistake.
Is that, in part, you think, as you make the case for where things are now, are the feelings about this war based on the fact that the American people think they didn't get what they were sold?...
KING: Back now with our exclusive conversation with the former Vice President Dick Cheney. You noted earlier you disagreed with the president's strategy on Iran and North Korea.
I am told by people close to you and close to the former president that the most tense moment came late, when you wanted the president to pardon your friend and your former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, and the president said no. How tense did that get?...
KING: What next for your party? There has been a big dust-up in recent days, in parts stoked by the White House, about Rush Limbaugh making some comments. David Frum, a conservative who worked in your administration, says that Rush Limbaugh is kryptonite, because he drives away the voters the Republicans need to build the road to discovery. Is Rush Limbaugh kryptonite?
DICK CHENEY: No, Rush is a good friend. I love him. I think he does great work and has for years. He's now offered to debate President Obama on his radio show. Hell, I'd pay to see that! It would be interesting to have developed.
I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose..."
This is another excellent example of how a serious journalist fairly asks the tough questions!
John King in my opinion cannot be legitimately criticized of being biased in favor of Dick Cheney because he was criticized (unfairly in my opinion) about this interview by NewsBusters which is a Neocon GOP activist media watchdog and rapid response group:
CNN's King Asks Dick Cheney 'Did You Leave [Obama] a Mess?'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
March 15, 2009 - 18:50 ET
"The highly-anticipated interview of former Vice President Dick Cheney by CNN's John King aired Sunday morning, and as most would expect, it began quite contentiously with the "State of the Union" host asking..."
John King has also been attacked by Rush Limbaugh which means that he is not popular with the far right and he credibly explained right after the election why Obama has to govern from the center which is definitely not a popular message with many on the far left such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16902
ANALYSIS: Rush Limbaugh wrongly attacked John King of CNN for his fair analysis!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 4, 2008 - 8:32am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16933
John King explained Obama's "mandate" and why he has to govern from the center!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 7, 2008 - 1:03pm.
I have argued before and I stand behind my claim that serious and objective journalism is in an overall broken condition:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16968
Joe Scarborough, Mark Halperin & Lou Dobbs on the bias and failures of the media
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2008 - 9:16pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16746
Aaron Brown said "serious news at risk" in 2006 & Bernard Shaw confirmed it now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 12, 2008 - 8:04am.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728
The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (04:28)
Submitted By: DannyG
Uploaded: 8 months ago
Date Aired: July 22, 2008
"The press has been in bed with Barack Obama since he gave the keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Relive the "Obamedia's" public displays of affection in this video love story."
Walter Cronkite in my opinion set the right example of what serious journalism should be in the past:
http://www.grandtimes.com/cronkite.html
That's The Way It Is... with Walter Cronkite
by Kira Albin, interview conducted in 1996
GT: "But don't you think that journalists' personal opinions do come into play?
WC: The mark of a professional journalist is that we do adhere to an ethic. A professional journalist recognizes his or her prejudices and biases and avoids them in writing and reporting. There's no place in journalism for biased reporting on the front page. There is no place for subjective, personal opinions to creep in...
GT: How do you want to be remembered?
WC: [laughs] Oh, as a fellow who did his best. I'd like to be remembered as a person who tried to give the news as impartially, as factually, as possible, and succeeded most of the time..."
Based on what I have seen so far, John King definitely meets Walter Cronkite's high standards of professional journalism and he is setting the right example of what serious journalism should be right now. People like Chris Matthews should learn a lesson about objective journalism from John King!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
conducted his interview with Dick Cheney by saying that he should have brought up an unproven story with him (Sy Hersh's alleged claim about Cheney that he has not publicly come out with yet) and the same thing also goes for his guest Richard Wolffe in my opinion:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/29729001#29729001 (11:48)
GOP turns to Cheney to rewrite history
March 16: MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe talks about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s attempt to undermine support for the Obama administration while rewriting the history of the Bush administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/29729001#29729001 (11:48)
Here is the Countdown transcript of the key portion of this video which takes place at about 10:40 into it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29736340/
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, March 16
Read the transcript to the Monday show
Guests: Robert Reich, Gail Davidson, Janeane Garofalo
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: "And, Richard, to that point as well, this wasn‘t on FOX News. This was CNN. And again, in this interview, he went unchallenged.
Where were the follow-up questions here? Where was a question even couched in the most disbelieving of manners about that hint that Sy Hersh dropped last week about his investigation of American assassination squads that supposedly reported directly to Cheney? I mean, just a question about that, even if it is the craziest thing in the world, give him a chance to say it?
RICHARD WOLFFE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I‘d be fascinated to read Sy Hersh‘s book. And certainly, that was an explosive revelation he made.
You know, what happens—and I respect John King a lot, but this was a pretty soft interview. And what happens with Dick Cheney when you interview him is that he often gets all spooky on you and he starts to give you the death stare. He can play the golden silence very well in an interview and he can resort to the sort of intelligence-laden classified information that makes it sounds like he knows a lot more than you.
In this case, out of government, when he doesn‘t have intelligence and he can‘t throw his weight around anymore, he really does need to be pressed on why he said what he did, why he did what he did. And that does require follow-up.
OLBERMANN: Our political analyst, Richard Wolffe, as always my friend, great thanks..."
To set this matter straight, Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolffe in my opinion are both heavily partisan political commentators no different than how Sean Hannity is on FOX News while John King is a serious reporter and journalist who is credible!
John King as a serious reporter and journalist obviously does NOT engage in the same kind of conspiracy theories, political witchhunts, and bullying tactics that blatantly partisan political commentators like Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity regularly get into!
John King in my very strong opinion would have been nuts to put his credibility and objectivity on the line by bringing up an unproven conspiracy theory with Cheney (Sy Hersh's alleged claim about Cheney that he has not publicly come out with yet) in that interview!
That Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolffe were this critical of John King only reinforces my confidence in John King that he is a truly credible journalist and news reporter. John King in my very strong opinion has more credibility in his little toe than both Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolffe have put together!
I completely agree with media critic Howard Kurtz that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews "shouldn't be in the role of anchors:"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/22/sotu.02.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH JOHN KING
State of the Union: Reliable Sources
Aired February 22, 2009 - 10:00 ET
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN ANCHOR: "Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are entitled to say whatever they want, but they shouldn't be in the role of anchors..."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html
updated 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
King: Veterans' stories show cost of military service
Story Highlights
* Savannah police officer lives with physical, mental injuries from Iraq war
* Veteran is skeptical about plans to pull out of Iraq
* 50-year-old colleague on force is being called back into service
* He's not complaining -- "Once a soldier, always a soldier," he says
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCOther1 
By John King
CNN Chief National Correspondent
On CNN's "State of the Union," host and chief national correspondent John King goes outside the Beltway to report on the issues affecting communities across the country. This week, King traveled to Georgia to learn about the toll military service is taking on two veterans.
Chris Tucker, who served three tours in Iraq, suffers from hearing, back, foot problems and still has nightmares.
SAVANNAH, Georgia (CNN) -- As his tank rolled into Baghdad in April 2003, Chris Tucker mounted his camera to capture the moment.
"It's history; we made history," he told CNN back then. "It's my first war, hopefully my last war."
He could not have imagined then that six years later, Iraq would still be a combat zone.
"I thought we would get there quick and handle our business and we'd be out," Tucker told us this week. "At least, that's what we were told anyway."
Tucker received a medical discharge from the Army last year and he now is Officer Chris Tucker of the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department.
"You still get to serve your community and your country in other ways," he said.
At age 26, he is a veteran of three combat tours. The patrol skills he learned on the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah and Sadr City come in handy as he drives his police cruiser around the neighborhoods of his Savannah precinct.
"Some people -- you will be moving around the corner and they will just run," Tucker said as he drove his cruiser. "And you can tell they are favoring one side -- maybe they have a gun."
He loves his new job, and the joys of fatherhood. His daughter Callie was born three months ago.
'State of the Union'
John King reinvents Sunday talk: More time, for more politics.
Sunday, 9 a.m. ET
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/
"So my life is slowing down," Tucker said. "But I enjoy the slow pace."
But he hasn't left it all behind. As the war hits the six-year mark, Tucker is part of a history -- and a legacy -- still being written as the military tries to better understand the depth of the damage to those exposed repeatedly to the violence.
"I still have the nightmares and wake up and find myself downstairs and I don't know how I got there," Tucker said. "I still see and dream the same things. ... Faces. Kids' faces. People that you have engaged or you have had contact with. ... You see your colleagues blown up. Things like that."
He left the Army with a sour taste. He was sent back for his third tour despite the nightmares, depression, major hearing loss and painful injuries to his back and both feet. Then, the Army decided to give him a medical discharge for his back issues even though Tucker believes he could have recovered with rehabilitation. But he tries not to dwell on his frustration.
"I try to distance myself from it as much as I can, because for me, the more I think about it, the more I reflect on what happened and what we did, the more I think the dreams and the nightmares actually come back."
Tucker is as tired of the Iraq war as anyone, but his experience tells him things can suddenly take a turn for the worse, and so he is skeptical of President Obama's promise to get most combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010. 
Watch former VP Cheney discuss Iraq war strategy »
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
"I think we are in too deep to pull out," Tucker said. "You can't just commit the way we committed and then say, 'OK, we are done.' ... Politics should not be involved in the way the war is handled."
There will be no more tours for Tucker, but a colleague on the Savannah-Chatham force will soon deploy for his first Iraq tour, and is being ribbed around the precinct, by Tucker and others, as "the grandpa going off to war."
Don't Miss
After 6 years fighting in Iraq, Americans' interest wanes
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/12/iraq.war/index.html
Green jobs grow slowly in Philadelphia
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/sou.philadelphia.green/index.html
Fence represents divide over illegal immigration
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/king.sou.border/index.html
Indiana mayor says he'd put stimulus money to good use
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/king.sou.carmel/index.html
Police Cpl. Randy Powell is 50 years old and became a grandfather just last week. 
Watch Tucker and Powell tell their stories »
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/sou.ga.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
Powell served nearly 20 years ago in the Persian Gulf War, then in 1992 took an early retirement package when the Army was downsizing after the war. The deal required him to stay on what the military calls the IRR -- the Individual Ready Reserve -- but even as troops were sent to Afghanistan after 9/11 and then to Iraq for repeat combat tours, Powell heard nothing.
Then last year, nearly 15 years after leaving the military, he was told to report to a local Reserve center. Another request came in January of this year. Both times, after some perfunctory paperwork, Powell was sent home.
But when he returned home from work one day last month, an overnight letter from the Army had arrived with orders that he was being activated for an Iraq deployment. First, starting next month, he'll have refresher training on radar systems at Fort Jackson in South Carolina.
"They're kind of shocked," Powell said of his family. But there are no complaints from Powell -- to the contrary.
"I still feel I am fully capable of being a soldier," he told us outside at his police precinct. "Once a soldier, always a soldier. I find that it's an honor to serve within the military. I enjoyed the military while I was in. Kind of looking forward to getting back in the groove." E-mail to a friend 
All About Iraq War • U.S. Army • Barack Obama • Veterans' Affairs
television" which I definitely agree with. John King was very humble when Bernard Shaw gave him that compliment:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/07/sotu.04.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH JOHN KING
The Last Word: Bernard Shaw
Aired June 7, 2009 - 12:00 ET
BERNARD SHAW, FORMER CNN ANCHOR: "But I sense that CNN's viewers know that you constitute the best political reporter on television.
JOHN KING, HOST: We're not here to talk about me. I'm going to cut you off, because we're not here...
SHAW: I just wanted to return the compliment...
KING: .. we're not here to talk about me...
SHAW: ... and I say that sincerely..."
I opened this post saying "I definitely think that John King of CNN is the best reporter as well as the most credible journalist in the cable news business today" so I am glad that I am not alone in my thinking!
John King in my opinion is an excellent reporter who is credible, gets his information from first-hand sources, and he definitely knows the right kind of questions to ask!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0907/16/cnr.03.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing
Aired July 16, 2009 - 10:53 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "John King has a question for you, Senator, as well.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Senator, you have, as promised, had a polite, pointed at times, but a polite policy conversation with Judge Sotomayor. I spoke to a conservative activist this morning who said, look, there's no doubt she is going to be confirmed. But we're asking our guys, and by "our guys" he meant the Republicans on the committee, to feel her out a little bit more, ask her more questions about taxpayer funding of abortion, racial preferences, same-sex marriage and the death penalty.
This activist said the goal was to try to get more statements from her on the record that could potentially be used against blue- state, purple-state, red-state, vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 presidential elections. Have outside groups approached you or your staff saying, help us here for political purposes?
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: There's all kinds of ideas and philosophies about how to approach this and how to make political hay out of it. My view is that we should just do the right thing. We have a constitutional responsibility to conduct a thorough hearing. She had a number of things in her background that were very troubling. Most of those have been pretty, you know, inquired into. We'll all have to decide how well those answers hold up to scrutiny, and we can't do this on politics.
She is a good person, I don't think there's any doubt about it, a good background and a wonderful person. So, I think that's where we'll be. Each senator will have to make up their mind, and maybe discussing these issues are important because a lot of Americans would feel that we failed if we didn't at least ask about some of these troubling statements to make sure that we get a public commitment to the people of the United States to be faithful to the law..."
him on CNN last night or else I think that he could seriously risk losing the PA Senate race to Pat Toomey on that issue in a close race. Everything that John King asked Joe Sestak was completely legitimate and was very fair in my opinion (just like how the questions that Rachel Maddow asked Rand Paul about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 were completely legitimate and very fair). I do not believe that Sestak credibly answered John King's questions in this CNN video, I think that he clearly tried to duck and avoid them:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/05/24/jk.rep.joe.sestak.intv.cnn
Rep. Joe Sestak dodges WH job questions 5:04
Source: CNN
Added On May 24, 2010
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak spoke with CNN's John King about the controversy over a job offer.
John King USA: - CNN.com Blogs
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/05/24/jk.rep.joe.sestak.intv.cnn
I also think that the specific story which Joe Sestak eventually gives (if he gives one) will have to match whatever story that the White House eventually gives (if they give one) if it is going to be a believable and credible story. If Sestak and the White House give stories that are too different from each other, then neither one of them will sound believable in my opinion because there will always be some question as to who is telling more of the truth.
Here is the CNN transcript of this interview:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/24/jkusa.01.html
JOHN KING, USA
Slippery Politics; "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Aired May 24, 2010 - 19:00 ET
JOHN KING, HOST: "As we wait for that statement, let's head up to Capitol Hill to join the lawmaker, get the views of the lawmaker who will have a vote on this issue and also has great experience on this issue. Joe Sestak is the Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. He's the Democratic Senate-nominee in that state running for the seat currently held by Arlen Specter and he is the highest ranking former military official, former admiral, to serve in the United States Congress.
Congressman Sestak, let's start there. The compromise would essentially -- you would go on the record repealing "don't ask, don't tell" now, but it would give the defense secretary time to implement the policy and apparently a little bit of wiggle room if the feedback from the troops in the survey under way causes him some concerns about housing or some other issues. Is it acceptable to you?
REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA SENATE CANDIDATE: Actually, it's not. I feel very strongly that what Admiral Mullen said really struck home. We're actually asking people to live a lie. We're asking them to live a lie in an institution that prides itself on integrity. In my 31 years in the U.S. military, I watched this turn on a dime.
When we were struck, for example, at 9/11 and we could immediately implement the wonderful men and women of this nation and place them in harm's way. There's not a question in my mind that we could do the same now. This may be one of shared compromise or is a principle compromise, but I honestly think it's taking too long to get to the principle that everyone's created equal.
I went to war and we knew (INAUDIBLE) public surveys that a certain percentage of those members of my carrier battle group, aircraft carrier battle group were gay, how do you even think of coming home and saying they don't have equal rights. I understand the great respect that people have as I do for Secretary Gates, but we can do this much more rapidly.
KING: So then would you vote no if this was the compromise? If your leadership told Joe, this is the only way to get the votes. The conservative Democrats will not accept a faster plan. Would you vote no on principle or would you give in to such a compromise?
SESTAK: I'll give in to this shared compromise probably as long as there is something which I haven't found out yet that we aren't, and I asked Secretary Gates this literally during a hearing two months ago. We aren't discharging in the meantime those who somehow say, I'm gay. I'd like to see that held to where we place that in abeyance somehow.
KING: Congressman, I want to clear up once and for all a controversy that has dogged you a little bit. You said some time ago that when Arlen Specter was still in the race, early in the primary somebody at the White House came to you and said I will offer you a job, will give you some kind of a job if you would get out. I talked to David Axelrod earlier today; he said White House lawyers have assured them that all these coverings were appropriate. What specifically did they offer you, sir?
SESTAK: Well I was actually asked by a reporter something that a few months ago that had happened almost eight months earlier.
KING: Right.
SESTAK: And I answered it honestly --
KING: You answered it honestly and you said they offered you a job.
SESTAK: I said -- and I did answer it honestly and said yes, because I felt, as you asked me about my naval experience that I have a personal accountability -- I should have for my role in a matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I'll let others talk about their roles --
KING: Sir, I need to ask you about this.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: I need to ask you about this. You mentioned your military experience and you cast yourself -- and I don't question -- as a man of great integrity. The American people, as you know, don't trust politicians. They don't trust this town. If somebody was playing politics as usual or possibly breaking the law, sir, in trying to induce you to leave a political campaign with a federal appointment that could possibly be breaking the law. We're trying to get just the basics of who said what and offered what?
SESTAK: Yes sir and I'll let others speak for themselves --
KING: You're the only one who knows, sir.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: You're -- there's you and someone at the White House involved in these conversations. You're one of the parties who knows.
SESTAK: Someone, as I said, was asked. I answered the question and I did forthrightly for my personal accountability in that matter.
KING: So what is the harm --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: What is the harm of you saying this is the person who called me and this is what they offered me so that we can go to that person and get the other end of the conversation?
SESTAK: I'll tell you what the harm actually appears to be. You and I should be talking right now about how people were slammed in this economy, John --
KING: I would love to talk about those things, sir.
(CROSSTALK)
KING: We have talked about them in the past and I hope we will talk about them in the future of this campaign. And we have talked about them in the past, but this is a question about the public trust in institutions. You want to move to the United States Senate. You want to put your hand on a bible and take an oath. When people look at this town, they don't like the shenanigans. And I'm simply asking you who offered you a job to say get out of the race?
SESTAK: Yes, sir. And I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. And I have great respect for you, but others need to explain whatever their role might be. I did explain with integrity my role. But thank you very much.
KING: All right, Congressman, we'll keep trying to get that answer --
(CROSSTALK)
KING: If you change your mind, we'll be here to take your phone call I promise you.
SESTAK: Yes sir, and I'm sorry to rush. I have a vote literally time (INAUDIBLE) just ran but they give an extra minute and John, thank you very much.
KING: Cast your vote, sir. We'll talk again in the days ahead. I appreciate it very much.
SESTAK: Thank you. Thank you..."
and what a political commentator is!
I really like the "dinosaur" philosophy that John King said he uses where he clearly shows how he can separate the role of a political commentator like Sean Hannity from the role of a reporter which is what he does. This response to Sean Hannity was proper in my opinion because Hannity exercised very bad judgment when he unfairly attacked both Howard Kurtz and John King on his show:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0903/01/sotu.02.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH JOHN KING
State of the Union: Reliable Sources
Aired March 1, 2009 - 10:00 ET
HOWARD KURTZ: "I'm sure you remember that on-air rant by CNBC's Rick Santelli challenging the Obama mortgage bailout with his pals at the Chicago Board of Trade. Well, John King and I are getting a little bit of flak for our skeptical reaction last week.
Here's the instant replay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Now, he has every right to take on Santelli after that diatribe. Santelli may or may not have a populist point. But isn't he supposed to be a reporter? I guess ranting on television is one way to get attention.
JOHN KING, HOST: I think you just hit the nail on the head there, Howie. A way to get attention. And I think there's probably a little bit too much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: That, it seems, was enough to set off Fox's Sean Hannity.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Now it seems CNN talking heads Howard Kurtz and John King were brutally (ph) offended by CNBC's Rick Santelli's emotional reaction to President Obama's socialist housing policies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Let's bring back my partner in crime, John King.
John, I said Santelli may or may not have had a point. I don't recall supporting the president or embracing -- what did Hannity call it -- socialism. How about you?
KING: No, I don't think we embraced or rejected anything, Howie, because we were trying to be reporters. My point and your point is that Mr. Santelli's job is to go find that outrage if it exists, if is a factual portrayal.
My opinion -- and maybe we're dinosaurs, Howie -- is that we cover the news, we don't try to make the news. That's, I think, what our job is.
KURTZ: Right. And I love when right-wingers or left-wingers beat up on journalists. I mean, Hannity doesn't have Alan Colmes any more to balance him. His guests this week included Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, and Mitt Romney.
So, again, we were not really taking any side. This wasn't a debate about the substance of the proposal, it was debate about how far should journalists go -- and you get a lot of attention when you crank up the volume, John -- how far should they go in talking about the president's plans?
KING: It's a great point you make. And again, we should make the distinction, what Sean Hannity does -- and I respect him, he's a good guy -- he does something very different from what John King and Howie Kurtz do.
He is a political commentator. We are reporters. There's room in the business for both, but he has more license to do things that you and I simply aren't comfortable with. And like I said, I might be a dinosaur, but I'll stick in my mud pit.
KURTZ: He's got plenty of license as a commentator.
All right, John. We'll turn it back over to you. Thanks very much..."
Sean Hannity should have known better than to mess around with serious journalists like John King and Howard Kurtz. King and Kurtz in my opinion each have more credibility and objectivity in their little toe than both Hannity and his leader Rush Limbaugh have combined!