SALT LAKE CITY — What’s it like to cover historic hearings in Washington, D.C.? Deseret News Washington correspondent Matthew Brown, with support from other reporters, worked each day trying to put into perspective the historical nature of the hearings.
The key is not just to cover what is happening, but to focus on why it is happening and provide perspective to readers.
I asked Matt to shed some light on his experience, going inside his newsroom in Washington, which during the past few weeks was congressional hearing rooms.
Question: How do you get credentials to cover the hearing when the whole world wants to watch and attend? Give us a sense of how the press corps works.
Matt Brown: Demand to cover the impeachment hearing was high, but the seating capacity was limited to about 110 reporters and a certain number of photographers, so credentials weren’t guaranteed when the House Press Gallery drew among those who submitted requests. Fortunately, I was credentialed for every hearing I requested. The journalists were let in first about an hour before the hearing began to find your seat and that’s where I became acquainted with a diverse group each day, ranging from a reporter from Swedish Radio and long-time veteran political writer for Newsday to a writer I’d followed on Twitter for Mother Jones and the political correspondent from Playboy.
Question: What was the mood like in the hearing room? Was there nervousness among congressional staff? Was there nervousness among the press corps?
Brown: The sense that we were covering something historic and significant was palpable. A consistently cold draft in the large, vaulted and ornate Ways and Means Committee room didn’t keep anyone from intensely focusing on the job at hand — communicating with editors, taking notes, tweeting and eventually writing their dispatches about the hearing. Photographers were poised for the moment a witness or member of Congress made a hand gesture or said something significant, then the clatter of shutters would go off. And the press corps was busy outside the hearing room as well. An area near the entrance of the Longworth House Office Building, where the hearings were held, was cordoned off for television cameras. During breaks, the television correspondents would head out to that area and be standing next to each other, but in front of their respective camera operator, telling their viewers about the latest development in the hearings.
Question: How do you prepare yourself to cover such a consequential event in Washington, D.C.?
Matt Brown: I read as much as I could about the impeachment process both past and current, and talked to several people who were experts in the process or involved in the Clinton impeachment in 1998. But nothing prepared me for hearing the witnesses testify and answer questions from committee members. I had little knowledge about what Foreign Service workers did — although I have a couple of friends who worked for the State Department — until I heard several of them testify. My impressions inspired a story about how the hearings exposed millions of viewers to the work of the country’s diplomatic corps. You also had to listen carefully to detect the motives and piece together the strategy behind members of Congress doing the questioning and using their time to give speeches. All the witnesses had testified behind closed doors so the public hearings had a political purpose beyond finding truth.
Question: You had interactions with your editors throughout each day of the hearings. Can you shed any light on the process used to determine what to cover and how to cover it?
Brown: The decisions on what to write about came from discussions with editors during breaks and after the hearing about what I was experiencing in the room and what they were seeing via television. Our coverage wasn’t just about what was said in the hearings. On the first day, my focus was on the people who traveled from out of state to just listen. I came across a group of three women in their late 70s from Long Island, N.Y., who were passionate in their views against the president and waited in line as long as three hours for their chance to sit through some of the hearings the first two days. There were only about 100 seats for the public and if they had to leave for anything they would lose their seat and get back to the end of the line. So, these people were sincere in their concern for the country and its government.
Question: What separates Deseret News coverage from other media?
Brown: Three members of Utah’s congressional delegation play direct roles in the impeachment and each representative and senator has a vote, so our readers deserve to know where they stand. So that provided the main guidepost on where to differentiate our coverage from the rest. For example, the last day of the Intelligence Committee hearing, Utah Rep. Chris Stewart dispensed with questioning to give a speech looking forward to the Senate trial, while on that same day Utah Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee were at the White House meeting with President Trump and discussing strategy, respectively. That turned into a unique story about how Republicans were resigned to impeachment in the House and turning their focus to the Senate trial. Earlier, when Stewart told me he was the one who happened to open the door to let a group of angry GOP colleagues into a closed door meeting, it was another unique angle under the headline, “What happened when Republicans stormed the castle?”
Question: What has been most memorable during the past few weeks as it relates to the impeachment hearings?
Brown: The most remarkable moment for me came during testimony by Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council adviser on Russia. After hearing an impassioned speech by a congressman about the harm partisanship and hateful words can cause, she brought the room to silence by saying she agreed and then gave an account of why she wanted to work for the administration, that she was appearing to help them make “a momentous decision” that will impact future elections. I wasn’t the only one impressed by what she said. Her words to move beyond partisanship went viral on social media.
Question: Many are critical of the media and its coverage of Washington, even invoking “fake news” to discount the coverage. What do you say to media critics about what we are trying to accomplish with our stories and analysis?
Brown: Our stories and analysis of the impeachment in particular and news out of Washington in general are not intended to convince or win over anyone to a particular point of view. My objective as a journalist for more than 35 years has always been two-fold: to learn the truth and help readers gain a deeper understanding of the issues and people I write about. I hope I succeed, most of the time.