Mic Flop

An attempt by MSNBC reporter Mike Viquiera to question special counsel Robert Mueller Sunday morning as he left church has drawn some fire from people on both sides of the opinion line regarding Mueller's recently-concluded probe of the 2016 presidential election.

More right-leaning folks think Mr. Viquiera was wrong to confront Mr. Mueller when the latter was leaving church, with a lot of them using the word "ambush." Whether that label is hyperbole or not, the report was clear that the news crew waited outside the church and Mr. Viquiera even said he had a few "prepared questions" ready. Mr. Mueller simply said "No comment" and drove away, which should probably give you a clue as to how important he thinks Mr, Viquiera is in the scheme of things.

Some left-leaning folks also criticized the choice of venue for the questioning, with a couple of them also wondering why reporters weren't trying to pin Mr. Mueller down during a time when it might have been a little more useful, such as during the probe itself.

I agree that the set-up is rude -- Mr. Viquiera, there's not a lot about sticking a camera in someone's face when they're leaving a church service that's "as respectful as possible."  And I agree that "interview" attempts while Mr. Mueller was actually at work on his investigation make a lot more sense from a news perspective.

But I actually want to critique Mr. Viquiera on other grounds, to suggest he is guilty of an offense much worse, and it's this: Just how stupid and attention-hungry are you, Mikey? If you really thought that the man whose entire volume of comment during the two years of his project could fill about one paragraph was suddenly going to answer your loaded interrogatories, then you need to stick your diploma back in the oven because your bread ain't done. If you knew he wouldn't answer then what was the goal? Get your face on the camera asking him questions? Projecting an image? To whom, and for whose benefit? Your own highlight reel, or your network's promo videos?

What kind of substantive news was going to result from surprise questions blurted out at the car door? What kind of detailed observation or explanation of a two-year legal process was going to happen? "Well I'll tell you what. You know, I don't have any of the documents or material that I worked with here in front of me and my family would like me and the Mrs. to get home in time to share in the Easter ham. But because you jumped out of the bushes and caught me before I could get inside my car, I'll stand here and try to walk you through a process that about two and half people in the bowels of the Justice Department legal library understand and summarize the decision-making process that I took about 400 pages to explain in the report."

There are lots of things news reporters and writers do today that some commenters like to seize on as reasons for "why people hate the media." I don't know if this incident amounts to one of those -- plus I don't really think that we should hate the media, either individually or as a group. But I am definitely starting to get a picture of why no one should take Mike Viquiera seriously.