The Atlantic: Latest Outlet to Write Puff Piece on Michelle Rhee
In its November 2008 edition,The Atlantic jumps onto the national trend of chronicling the wonders of D.C. public schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. The lede of the story delves into an old story–that is, Rhee's astounding record of returning all e-mail that comes her way.
“Every e-mail a parent sends me, I answer,” she said, a boast that even her critics grudgingly concede.
And from there, author Clay Risen offers more of the same: Change-agent with sharp elbows alienates the school system's vested constituencies and tilts against old-time politicos, including Marion S. Barry Jr.
The only objectionable passage comes here:
And [Rhee] does not suffer fools, gladly or otherwise. When I asked her how she would characterize her ideal relationship with parents, she replied, “That’s a great question. So often reporters ask me stupid questions. I had one interview yesterday, and I was like, ‘Okay, you are not smart.’”
Let's unpack a bit here. A few notes on this terribly rendered moment:
1) It's not that great a question. Nor is it a complete dog. But think about it: You are a reporter and you're profiling someone, someone who has a vested interest in getting you to write favorably about them. Think you might overstate the case a bit when rating the questions coming at you?
2) The trait that this episode reflects is not that Rhee doesn't suffer fools; it's that Rhee is an operator, a really political person. It's clear that the author here, Risen, is very flattered by Rhee's boast. Why else include it in the story?
3) Another trait that the episode could reflect is that Rhee is mean and judgmental. What if that journalist who asked dumb questions the day before was just new, or perhaps a bit nervous about the interview? Is this kind of intellectual hard-linerism–nastiness–what we want out of a schools chancellor?
Perhaps not, but Risen just tucks it neatly into the established Rhee narrative–tough administrator doesn't suffer fools!
2:05 pm
"Another trait that the episode could reflect is that Rhee is mean and judgmental. What if that journalist who asked dumb questions the day before was just new, or perhaps a bit nervous about the interview? Is this kind of intellectual hard-linerism–nastiness–what we want out of a schools chancellor?"
i really don't mean anything by this, but periodistas as victims? please! journalists prey on people's insecurities, it is what they do, and what they get paid for. sometimes people don’t fall for it, and they call them on their "snow job" questions.
i read this piece as a non journalist, and it is far from a “puff” piece. its pretty solid writing. there is some good stuff in there about education and her innovative approach.
as far as your point on being mean to the poor old journalist who asked dumb questions, to me, rhee is simply manipulating the journalist, because she knows them, and the journalist (editor) calls her on it because it is suppose to be the other way around.
you know very well that sometimes they(journalists) ask dumb questions or kiss their target's butt, so as to relax the target, get them thinking you’re friends, and get the target to open up so you can than nail them.
So if I read you correctly, if you don’t nail somebody than is a puff piece?
i don’t know, but to me, it just shows she is a sharp cookie and knows a thing or two about PR.
anyway, no big deal, but i wouldn’t call her a nasty hard-liner or anything of the sort. because that would be, ummm.. mean and nasty?
i like rhee and she is hardly what i would call vengeful.
oh, and so what if the e-mail thing is old news? it is a national magazine and perhaps that is new to Atlantic readers who are not from the district. and don’t you like that our chancellor answers our emails?
reaching a bit there eric?
5:20 pm
I'm going to say no, not reaching. I will say that many of your points here are very, very strong, especially the one about periodistas as victims. But as far as the Atlantic goes, there are two problems with letting that passage into the publication: 1) It comes off as self-serving for the journo; and 2) This is NOT an example of Rhee not suffering fools. Rather, it is an example of Rhee buttering up a guy who's writing about her for an influential magazine. To spin it as Rhee not suffering fools is naive and ridiculous. Also lazy: If the writer wants to make the point about Rhee not suffering fools, let him find instances at staff meetings and the like where the chancellor cut people off and otherwise sent them on their way for saying dumb things.