Obama Super Bowl interview: Should he expect a grilling?

On Sunday, the president will sit down with CBS News's Scott Pelley. Given that last week's '60 Minutes' interview was widely panned as a puff piece, this one may be tougher than expected.

|
CBS/AP
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speak with '60 Minutes' correspondent Steve Kroft (l.) in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington. The interview could come back to bite Obama this weekend.

President Obama will sit down with CBS's Scott Pelley on Sunday for a pre-Super Bowl interview, traditionally given to the network broadcasting the big game. 

Over the years, the tone of these game-day conversations has varied widely: In 2009, NBC's Matt Lauer – who also got the 2012 interview – took a lighter approach with the newly-elected president, asking Obama about living with his mother-in-law and whether he had established bedtime routines with his girls. In 2010, CBS's Katie Couric focused her questions on policy matters like health care and the economy (with one obligatory question about which team he thought would win the game). In the 2011 interview, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly asked Obama repeatedly how it felt to have so many Americans "hate" him.

So what should Obama expect this time? You never know – but we'd anticipate a serious grilling.

We say this not only because of Mr. Pelley's reputation as an aggressive journalist, but also because this just happens to be the second interview Obama has given to CBS News in a little more than a week. The other, of course, was the widely panned interview Steve Kroft conducted with Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for "60 Minutes." 

The "60 Minutes" interview – which Mr. Kroft made clear had been the White House's idea, and for which he'd only been given 30 minutes – was slammed as a puff piece by Republicans, as well as by many in the mainstream media, for focusing largely on the relationship between the president and his onetime rival. A number of critics called it little more than a "Hillary 2016" ad. 

Over at the conservative Breitbart website, Larry O'Connor wrote that Kroft's sole question on Benghazi was "the journalistic equivalent of 'If you were a Libyan tree, what kind of tree would you be?' " And Ben Shapiro dubbed it "a 2016 presidential announcement masquerading as a lovefest masquerading as an interview," adding: "This wasn't 60 Minutes. It was Sixty Shades of Gray."

Notably, one of the most savage critiques of that interview came from the left-leaning Atlantic, whose Conor Friedersdor wrote afterward that Obama and Clinton "benefited from 60 Minutes gravitas while answering questions better suited to Ellen."

In the same piece, Mr. Friedersdorf specifically contrasted Kroft's interview with an interview Pelley previously conducted with President George W. Bush, and called the comparison "stunning." He wrote: "I won't speculate about personal ideological bias. It's possible that Pelley is just a much better journalist than Kroft. I will say that there is a glaring double standard in the coverage that 60 Minutes has afforded the two presidents."

Given all that, we're betting that Pelley may feel some pressure to display an extra-tough, take-no-prisoners-approach in his upcoming interview. Obama had better be forewarned.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Obama Super Bowl interview: Should he expect a grilling?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2013/0201/Obama-Super-Bowl-interview-Should-he-expect-a-grilling
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe