The longer President Biden lingers in the vicinity of a live microphone, the higher the probability for mischief and yes, entertainment. Given time, he may even accidentally recite Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities in its entirety.
I’ve been taken to task recently by Biden supporters and critics of the former president for highlighting Biden’s gaffes and misspeaks, including his calling Fox News White House correspondent, Peter Doocy, a “stupid son of a b—-” in response to a reasonable question about inflation.
It’s interesting that any criticism of Biden inevitably draws an angry comparison to his predecessor.
Trump haters point out, correctly so, that the former president regularly attacked the press, cast the media as his hated adversary, and said generally mean and inappropriate things on a fairly regular basis. All true.
But unless I missed something, and unfortunately for CNN and MSNBC, Trump isn’t president anymore. When he was, I was highly critical of his inflammatory rhetoric and incessant tweeting. Now, according to Biden’s defenders, the president, who ran on a promise of restoring civility to our discourse and unifying Americans, should be immune to criticism.
“Seriously? Biden at least makes sense when he speaks. Trump was the king of word salad,” read an email I received in response to a column about Biden’s gaffes. And that was the nice part. Later, in the same email, the writer told me to “Shut up!”
By the way, I’ve been told to “Shut up!” before. I’ve also been asked to “Go away!” and to “Drop dead!” So far, I’ve done none though the third is inevitable at some point.
Another emailer, in defending Biden, called me a “worthless idiot” before he got nasty. I responded by offering to have a civil dialogue. He emailed back, “Sorry you’re already on my ‘don’t waste my time’ list; I’m surprised I took the time to write this to you. Nice not knowing you.”
So much for polite, productive discourse.
“I am not joking when I say this, if you are ever working with me, and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot,” Biden said on his first day in office. “On the spot. No ifs, ands or buts.”
If you’re going to preach civility and unity, calling a reporter an S.O.B. in a public forum tends to detract from the message.
Biden isn’t the first president to call a reporter a name. I’ve been around politicians who have called reporters much worse, though not in front of a live microphone and running camera. I’ve been called worse myself by public officials and private citizens alike. It kind of comes with the territory. If your criteria for job satisfaction is, as George Costanza declared, “I must be liked!” journalism probably isn’t for you.
I do wonder why it is so difficult to have adult conversations about important issues on which we might disagree without hurling insults at one another. Constructive debates used to be a staple of polite society and even major news outlets. CNN had Evans and Novack. Fox had Hannity and Colmes and 60 Minutes had its “Point/Counterpoint” segment, all programs featuring representatives from the political left and right. Just debate. No yelling or name calling. These programs now stand out in sharp contrast to the agenda-driven advocacy and/or shouting matches featured on cable news.
If we’re honest, I don’t think we’re all that interested in civility. Civility requires empathy but it’s difficult to empathize if we refuse to listen. And if we were really interested, we’d be more intentional about listening. We’d rather be “right” than kind.
If we’re looking to politicians to restore civility we’re likely to be very disappointed. Sure, they’ll talk about it because it works nicely in a stump speech. But being civil only until someone disagrees with or annoys you doesn’t indicate a genuine commitment to productive discourse. It’s in those moments when we discover how committed we really are.
Rich Manieri is a professor of journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. You can reach him at manieri2@gmail.com.
