Ryan to reporter: Don’t stuff words into my mouth

posted at 9:21 am on October 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Just remember: there’s no such thing as media bias.  Reporter Terry Camp got a rebuke from Paul Ryan at the end of this interview for the ABC affiliate in Detroit, when Camp asked a “weird” question of Ryan at the end of a string of queries on gun violence.  After Ryan talked about the need for communities and groups within them to create moral structures and education and for government to push pro-growth policies to create jobs and opportunities in the inner cities, Camp tried tossing in a gotcha question — and got rebuked by Ryan as the interview ended:

Politico picked up the story:

When it aired, reporter Terry Camp characterized the interview as ending badly, and said Ryan was “not specific in his answers.” Meanwhile, the Ryan campaign said the candidate was asked a “weird question” relating gun violence to tax cuts.

Actually, Camp mischaracterized this in two different ways.  First, Ryan was providing responsive answers to the gun questions.  Camp was asking broad, philosophical questions, not specific questions on proposals or individual laws, and Ryan was providing philosophical answers.  Second, Camp tells viewers at the beginning of the clip that the interview ended badly when he began asking about gun violence — which is patently untrue, as the video shows.  It ended badly when Camp tried to connect gun violence to tax cuts, and Ryan and his team called him out for it while the cameras were still running.  In fact, when Ryan challenges Camp for “stuffing words in my mouth,” Camp can’t even come up with a defense … even though his microphone is still hot.

An editor should have known from watching the interview that Camp mischaracterized the end of it in his introduction.  The local ABC affiliate still let Camp’s introduction go to air.  Draw your own conclusions from that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I love Sarah, but she was too nice. Ryan would eat them up.

the new aesthetic on October 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM

.

She was a little tough on Hopey –thats why the media had to destroy her.
.

nice, naive, uninformed, inexperienced, not ready…great gal but over her head.

right2bright on October 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM

.
Sarah Be thy Name- kicked successful, seasoned 30 yr veteran, foreign policy expert – Joe Biden’s ass in her debate- as a nice, naive, uninformed, inexperienced, not ready…great gal but over her head

Her counterpart WAS BIDEN- not Hopey
And she passes the Biden test- on every level- so if Plugs is acceptable to the left as a VP – Sarah was/is as well. That’s politics.

FlaMurph on October 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

The media is the true enemy of the state.

KMC1 on October 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM

How fitting the reporter’s last name is “Camp”–as in, “I’m not objective in my craft; I’m in Obama’s camp”–as in “I end interviews with cheesy ‘camp’ gimmicks.”

Christien on October 9, 2012 at 12:25 PM


You can benefit from the decline if you sell short.

gryphon202 on October 9, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Well, perhaps with Romney/Ryan winning this November, Soros can lose big on his bet against the dollar. Not that it will matter to him financially.

freedomfirst on October 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Her counterpart WAS BIDEN- not Hopey
And she passes the Biden test- on every level- so if Plugs is acceptable to the left as a VP – Sarah was/is as well. That’s politics.

FlaMurph on October 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Agreed. That’s what the world continues to misunderstand…the last election was turned into Palin vs. Obama. Would have worked out if McLame wasn’t subverting her (and himself) at every turn.

freedomfirst on October 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Her counterpart WAS BIDEN- not Hopey
And she passes the Biden test- on every level- so if Plugs is acceptable to the left as a VP – Sarah was/is as well. That’s politics.

FlaMurph on October 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM

-
There were loads of comparisons to Barry… from the left the right and the middle… Sarah had him at nearly every one. Almost Zero comparisons were made to Biden. She had him from the stump every time. The lingering stench of the crap they threw at her is still on their hands (add usual suspects list here), and so far as I’m concerned it will never fade.
-
Meanwhile Ryan could have asked in reply, or perhaps better a surrogate should ask this bafoon at a later moment ‘so the slogan Hope and Change fixed EVERYTHING as it promised? Are you really that myopic?’
-

RalphyBoy on October 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM

That was the weirdest segue I’ve heard in an interview when Camp suddenly threw in that question about tax cuts–kinda like a teenager punk acting all sullen and pissy trying to get a reaction from the adults. But then what do you expect from an ABC affiliate? Just following the example of the big AllBarackChannel.

stukinIL4now on October 9, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The local ABC affiliate still let Camp’s introduction go to air. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Its ABC – ’nuff said. I don’t watch any MSM news for just this reason. They lie like the Obama c*ck-sucking dogs they are. I record the local 11pm newscast and speed through it to the weather, then I turn it off. New Hampshire only has one TV station – WMUR in Manchester. I hope their sponsors realize they are losing eyeballs.

woodNfish on October 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Mr. Ryan was very specific “with you today”, moron and liar.

Schadenfreude on October 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Reporter echoing OBama’s talking point about not being specific.
The American public cannot handle extreme specifics.
They can barely pay attention long enough to vote for God’s sake.
I can go read their specifics for myself.
It’s not possible to get into specifics in 2 minutes or even 5 minutes & certainly not with a moron.

Badger40 on October 9, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Yes. We do have a gun problem in this country. It’s called “Fast and Furious,” and it involves Eric Holder and Obama allowing narco terrorists to get their hands on 1000′s of assault weapons.

bitsy on October 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM

One more reason to vote for RR!

I will give credit to the station for letting the good part get out.

TroubledMonkey on October 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

No. That interviewer didn’t have an agenda. Nope. Not at all. Completely unbiased reporting right there. Yup. Sure was. Pulitzer Prize winning right there. For sure.

Absolutely.

Sponge on October 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Ryan challenged to a duel of wits by an unarmed man.

jnelchef on October 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I love how Ryan immediately stood up to this twit. He first gave him an incredulous look when asked that moronic rhetorical question, and then looked him right in the eye while he politely but sternly chastised him for stuffing words in his mouth. The stuttering reporter couldn’t respond other than repeating Obama talking points about specifics.

I am so glad the age of the new media is making these fossils irrelevant.

Daemonocracy on October 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM

For God’s sake, don’t ask the man about specifics! He’s not programmed for that!

Ryan opened up the subject for discussion twice by mentioning “economic reform” and “ending poverty.” No wonder his handler wet his pants and abruptly ended the interview. Chickenshit.

Constantine on October 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM

For God’s sake, don’t ask the man about specifics! He’s not programmed for that!

Ryan opened up the subject for discussion twice by mentioning “economic reform” and “ending poverty.” No wonder his handler wet his pants and abruptly ended the interview. Chickenshit.

Constantine on October 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Yes the man who has written his own budget and entitlement reform proposals against his own parties will is not “programmed for specifics”.

Daemonocracy on October 9, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Party’s*

Daemonocracy on October 9, 2012 at 7:06 PM

They have been specific, they are going to look at how much people take as deductions, and start there, identify a deduction, and lower the tax rate commensurate with the loop holes they can get rid of.

Fleuries on October 9, 2012 at 7:27 PM

It ended pretty well in my view.

Kinda like the debate!

Sherman1864 on October 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Constantine on October 9, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Do you have potty issues left unresolved from your childhood?

Sherman1864 on October 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2