Marshmallows, Lightly Toasted
We seem to have lost our sense of what's a tough interview at a time that calls for nothing but tough interviews.
A HuffPost headline:
Fox News Host Grills Kristi Noem With Devastating Question On Alex Pretti Shooting
Nah. Not close. It was flag football with no contact or running allowed. Senior shuffleboard. Slow pitch.
If this was a devastating interview, we’ve really lost something important. Like any memory of Mike Wallace.
Maybe it’s no surprise that this seems like tough reporting in a time when the president threatens people with prison or death based on whims and grudges, or when CBS News seems to have adopted a new motto: Fawning Over Power Since 2025.
Then there’s Fox News Channel, which is often used to check not what’s news—that’s silly—but whether Trump is considered totally awesome or just awesome at the moment. Any shift in its sycophantic tone or even facial expressions is examined: Even Fox News is questioning … . Thus, the HuffPost headline suggesting “ooh, burn, that’s gonna leave a mark.”
But FNC didn’t brush back Noem with a high, inside fastball. It tossed Noem the kind of predictable questions the PR person feeds the secretary in the limo on the way to the studio: marshmallows, lightly toasted.
Noem, the secretary of Homeland Security and thus the boss of ICE and the Border Patrol, has been the government’s chief mouthpiece trying to justify the killing of Alex Pretti. No surprise, but it hasn’t gone well. After Bubbaführer Greg Bovino, Noem might become the second sacrificial goat—not for the killing itself, which happened in plain sight on a city street and on many cameras, but for failing to warp its non-spinnable reality to the boss’s satisfaction.
Fox News’ Peter Doocy did this particular interview with Noem. Let’s see how tough he was.
Doocy: “So, you said last night, ‘It looks like a situation where an individual arrived on the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.’ Did he say, ‘I’m gonna kill you,’ or did he leave a note? How do you know that was his intent?” OK so far, but consider Noem’s answer.
Noem: “Part of this investigation will be hearing from those agents and officers and people on the ground. But we do know that he came to that scene and impeded a law enforcement operation, which is against federal law. It’s a felony. When he did that, interacting with those agents when they tried to get him to disengage, he became aggressive and resisted them throughout that process. These officers used their training, followed their protocols and were in fear of their lives and the people around them.”
Let’s imagine how a tougher reporter might have made this exchange a little more worthwhile.
Real Noem: “Part of this investigation will be hearing from those agents and officers and people on the ground. But we do know that he came to that scene and impeded a law enforcement operation, which is against federal law. It’s a felony. When he did that –”
Imaginary Doocy: “Let’s stop there, Madam Secretary. I asked what evidence you had that he intended to ‘inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.’ But instead, you say only that he ‘impeded a law enforcement operation.’ Why did you say you know Alex Pretti meant to kill law enforcement when you can cite no evidence of that? Why is it appropriate for a senior law enforcement official to make an apparently false and misleading statement like that?”
We’ll let Imaginary Noem answer for herself. Imaginary Doocy continues.
Imaginary Doocy: “You said the agents feared for their lives. How was Alex Pretti going to kill them with his phone?”
Insert Imaginary Noem’s answer here.
Imaginary Doocy: “You said ‘we’ll be hearing from those agents and officers and people on the ground.’ If you haven’t heard from them, how do you know they were in fear of their lives?”
Imaginary Noem? Hello?
At one point, Real Doocy really asks Real Noem: “It appears that Alex Pretti was disarmed. If he was disarmed, is it the protocol to use deadly force?” Good question, Real Doocy.
Real Noem really replies: “And that’s all part of this investigation. Every video will be analyzed. Everything will be looked at. And that’s part of the answer is that I can’t speak to every single thing that those officers thought. But this happened in seconds. They clearly feared for their lives and took action to defend themselves and the people around them.”
But Imaginary Doocy stops her after “and that’s all part of this investigation.”
Imaginary Doocy: “But you already said they followed protocol when they shot him to death after he was disarmed. So again, you’re saying it is protocol to shoot people to death after they’re disarmed?”
Imaginary Noem says whatever she says.
Imaginary Doocy: “After Alex Pretti was probably dead and certainly after he was prone and motionless with a phone but no gun, they continued to shoot his probably dead body nearly a dozen times. Doesn’t that suggest that you sent people into the streets who were just angry and volatile and out of control, and therefore dangerous to anyone?”
Imaginary Noem now pantomimes that her mic and earpiece have stopped working. Sorry, she mouths silently. She smiles.
But just slightly. And only until she’s off camera.
I would like to send Randy Loftis into National Media World to remind them what the questions are and to do their job.
Great use of a different technique to accomplish what would have taken too many words and been too confusing to say as a narrative. Thanks for reminding me to find ways to be direct. At the Mayborn, the LA Times reporter said that they hired the writers from Law & Order to come to the newsroom and help reporters write more directly and clearly. I watch Law & Order with that in mind now.