Surprising Outcomes

[akirlu]

Who would have guessed that one of the outcomes of the Vice Presidential race, and last night's debates for that matter, is the rising currency of Katie Couric's world-class interviewing skills?

Okay, sarcasm aside, it isn't just that Katie Couric is better than Gwen Ifill, it's that she really has been showing surprising chops with sweet, persistent, deadly follow-up questions. I never was impressed with Couric before, but increasingly, I am.

For James Fallow's somewhat more extensive analysis of the Veep debates, see here.

I gotta confess I was hoping for a Katie Couric moment. I'm guessing the 11th hour cries of "Ifill is biased," pretty much precluded that, though. Almost as if they planned it that way. Nobody does discourse suppression like the right.

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Couric's interviewing technique, at least in the Palin interview(s), is similar to mine: a follow up question ala "could you be more specific." I've done that a lot in recent weeks. Probably, we have the same source: Barbara Walters. Though I don't recall specifically (!) what I got from her book; it was a long time ago. And let's be fair: It's easy to make Palin look like a fool.

[daystreet.livejournal.com]

I think you are right about Couric's skill set vis-a-vis following up, etc., but I do think Ifill was somewhat crippled[*] (haha) by the format agreed to by the campaigns. As much as I like Ifill, though, I have to admit Couric has her beat on the Palin front.

[*] I watch her "Washington Week" every weekend and, judging from what I know about her skill set, I did get the feeling that she was probably on some pain killers last night for her broken ankle. Not making excuses, just observing.