Call a ransom a ransom. It's not a negotiation
by David Atkins
I know that with the Senate seemingly on its way to some sort of muddled "compromise" this topic is going to already seem passe, but I feel compelled to make an extra note on the "ransom" versus "negotiation" issue in the press this past week. Yesterday I wrote about how there would be no need to come up with creative metaphors for Republican hostage-taking behavior if the press would simply call it out for what it is. Of particular interest was this amusing yet baffling incident from the White House press avail:
But it was "ransom" — a word Obama has used repeatedly to describe Republican negotiating tactics — that struck the last press corps nerve. The usual briefing room decorum, such as it is, broke down entirely when Carney said finally that Obama would sign a debt-ceiling extension but not if it meant "paying a ransom" to Republicans.
"The president will not pay ransom for ... " Carney began.
"You see it as a ransom, but it's a metaphor that doesn't serve our purposes ... " NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro shouted back with broad support from other confused reporters.
"You guys are just too literal then, right? Carney said.
"We just want to accurately report," Shapiro began before Carney interjected. "We're trying to be accurate in our description of what's going on."
It turns out that Ari Shapiro elaborated on the incident in a way that only raises more questions:
On negotiations, Carney was a bit mushier.
"Can I ask a very straightforward question?" asked ABC's Jonathan Karl. "Is the president willing to engage in budget negotiations with Republicans if the government is still shut down?"
Carney explained that Obama will have "conversations" but won't pay a "ransom."
Of course, one man's negotiation is another man's conversation is another man's ransom.
Is it? Is it really? Have we reached a point of such moral cowardice that in the interest of "balance" we cannot call things as they are? The debt ceiling is a hostage, point blank. It's not a conservative or liberal priority, but just a hostage for the GOP to ransom. Must we not call it that because the GOP would like to call it something else? Why don't other hostage takers get the same courtesy?
More Shapiro:
At that point, the convoluted nonanswers had gotten to be too much.
Typically the White House briefing room is a reserved place, where people wait their turn to speak. It was not my turn to speak.
But I couldn't help it.
"You see it as a ransom, but it's a metaphor that doesn't serve our purposes," I protested to Carney. "We're trying to be accurate in our description of what's going on."
Finally, I tried to sum up what we'd learned so far.
"You said we need to see whether they're serious about putting the matches and gasoline aside. You've also said they want to keep a nuclear weapon in their back pocket. So, is keeping the nuclear weapon in the back pocket the same as putting the matches and gasoline aside? Or, even better, can we stop talking matches and gasoline and nuclear weapons and start talking about what's actually happening?"
Carney's response was not much clearer.
But an hour later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from a White House meeting with the president and was asked whether he would negotiate with Republicans over the budget if the government were still partially shut down.
"Not gonna happen," said Reid.
Three simple words. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Shapiro thinks he's quite clever, cutting through Carney's supposed obfuscation to get an "honest" answer. But he isn't.
Shapiro insisted against all reason on framing the issue as a "negotiation." He wanted to know whether the White House would "negotiate" with Republicans over the debt ceiling. Carney did exactly what he ought to do, which is deny the premise of the question. The very use of the word "negotiate" in this context is leading the witness. As well might Shapiro have asked pointed questions of Keanu Reeves about whether he would or would not "negotiate" with Dennis Hopper in Speed. The premise is ridiculous. Even if they're talking and making deals under the table, the correct public answer to that question is "we can talk as soon as he disarms the bomb." Because you don't negotiate with terrorists, at least not publicly.
As much as Shapiro desperately wants the issue to be about a "negotiation", it isn't. He thinks he got to the "truth." In reality, he got bad journalism that only further serves to mislead the public about the radical nature of the GOP's gamesmanship.
.