Playing dumb on C-span

[Cocoa]

did anyone see "Washington Journal" this morning?

A caller asked the host what the Downing Street memo was, and the host pretended not to know, and referred the caller to Google.

Obviously the host knew what the memo was, and what he was really saying is that he didn't feel like getting into it. Maybe there was a good reason he didn't feel like it. Maybe he personally, or C-span, decided that the Downing Street memo was overblown, the way they obviously feel about 9/11 suspicions.

But instead of explaining that, they just play dumb.

Reminds me of Michael Kinsley, who obviously knows what PNAC is, but pretends he doesn't, again on C-span...

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050905.shtml

<snip>

SCULLY (10/24/04): An e-mail from J. Steele: “Mr. Kinsley, how much influence do you believe the Project for the New American Century has had on President Bush?”

KINSLEY: Now, someone will have to remind me what that is.

SCULLY: That was the, the letter—wasn’t that the letter that came out in 1997, co-written by Donald Rumsfeld and others?

KINSLEY: I gotta confess, I don’t know.

SCULLY: OK—

KINSLEY: I, so I, so obviously—it may be influencing President Bush but it isn’t influencing me much. And I apologize.

more…

[Orrex]

1. They have rules of engagement

The moderators on WJ are sharply limited in the extent to which they are permitted to editorialize. They're probably instructed, in the event of such a potentially charged question, to play dumb and refer the caller to other sources.

If the question is essentially neutral, such as "how many US Senators does Washington, DC have?" then they seem to be permitted to answer, if they know. Other times I've seen the moderator throw it open to other callers: "Perhaps another caller would like to respond with the answer."

I don't think it's a Repub-friendly tactic; instead, I think it's the least-bad solution that they've devised to help keep from editorializing.

[Wilms]

2. kick n/t