Can't We Have a Civil Conversation?

Chris Wallace recently asked newly declared Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann the hard-hitting question "Are you a flake?" Three Emmys and a Peabody award to his credit Chris Wallace stooped to that question? If he interviews our current President, will he ask an equally valid question "Are you a nut?"

Is Fox starved for ratings? Is Mr. Wallace starved for attention? Maybe he was just hungry thinking about a bowl of cereal and the flake question snuck out of his subconscious. Perhaps he was protecting his fellow Harvard attendee President Obama by trying to discredit any opposing party challengers.

Whatever the tactic, Mr. Wallace was clearly out of line. Or was he?

In 2008, Katie Couric interviewed Sarah Palin and the reporter seemed to want to be the story herself as the interview took on more of the feel of a sparring match. Ms. Couric can barely let Mrs. Palin complete an answer before jumping in with retorts like "Why do you say that?" and "But..." Should a reporter start a question with "but?" Between condescending glances, Ms. Couric reloads to take aim at her agenda which Mrs. Palin is standing in the way of, or so it seems. Ms. Couric has a point to make and the VP candidate is merely a vehicle for making that happen.

Reporters and politicians have gotten more bold and less civil. Matt Lauer had an aggressive interview with then candidate Barak Obama that is well beyond the line of what was once permissible in an interview. Watergate changed many things, but "the line" of decorum has seemingly moved radically over the past decade or two. Perhaps Bill Clinton's not-so-presidential answers fueled the desire for the media to lay into public figures more. "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is" and boldface lies about his Monica Lewinsky affair may have emboldened the media to dig a little deeper, question a little harder, and press a little more to get public figures to crack. In the meantime, they have visibly moved the line of civility, and there is little hope that the line will ever move back.

Padora's box cannot be unopenned. Once open, the world changes and it cannot be unchanged. Civility is being trampled underfoot of reporters eager to make a mark, prove a point, and get the story (nay, be the story).

As our civil rights grow, our civility wanes. How exactly does one wage a war on lack of civility? A war on the uncivil is an oxymoron, so it appears the spiral will continue. Our children may not understand what an interview actually is in politics. There are two people who either talk enjoyably in a conversation or two people with opposing views, one who wants to prove a point by any means, and the other who is only "allowed" by the social norms of politics to say so much. Perhaps that political restraint only serves to fuel the reporter who knows that the politician has to tap dance, but cannot stomp his foot or respond with anything more harshly than a composed smile. Otherwise the politician appears to be out of control, terse, and unfriendly and in a soundbite world, one slip is all it takes to do in a politician.

Maybe if we could trust politicians to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, reporters wouldn't feel justified in being animals in interviews. Hmm. A little golden rule sure goes a long way, even in politics.