C&L Video: Couric's interview with Howard Dean (1/26/06)

[pacalo]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/26.html#a6871

Watch how she interjects Republican talking points in her questions. And she practices the Faux News "some people say" tactic: "A lot of people say the Democrats stand for nothing."

This is the interview in which she interrupted Dean in mid-sentence with this famous Republican misinformation point, "Wait a minute..."(enter cutesy "gotcha" smile)"The Democrats took a lot of money from Jack Abramoff."

[DFW]

1. Who would have thought

That having the chance at Tom Brokaw as a mentor, she instead chose Roger Ailes. How sad.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Katie's a bitch, no doubt...

I hate the way she keeps taking her glasses on and off like that somehow gives her credibility or makes her look intelligent. Brian Williams and NBC probably can't believe their good fortune that CBS made this decision. I personally am sticking with the underdog Elizabeth Vargas for my evening news. Somebody here said she's "icy" but at least she's neutral.

[pacalo]

8. I like Elizabeth Vargas, too.

:toast:

[tishaLA]

10. Apparently you don't know about Vargas' report

about Matthew Shepard's crucifixion. It was one of the low moments in recent "journalism" and a very good reason LBGT people hate her. link, link, link, link.

She's simply detestable.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. I guess I did miss that...

Maybe Elizabeth has a little more empathy for crime victims (hate or otherwise) since her own husband's shooting last year. I hope so.

[pacalo]

13. Thanks for the info.

[amitten]

3. I'm glad she tried to put Dean on the spot. That's her job.

Now if she does the same with her right-wing guests, I'll be happy.

I fully expect talk show hosts/journalists to play devil's advocate. If they just sit there and agree with the guest, what good are they? How will the audience learn about the guest?

That kind of questioning is a good thing. And after all, it allowed Dean to prove his point, because he was prompted by the question.

PS--But I don't like Katie Couric. She does not deserve to be an anchorwoman. Many other more capable women would have been better choices.

[pacalo]

5. It's a good thing when the interviewer refrains from using

a certain party's obvious talking points (those used over & over by every shill until they've become platitudes) throughout the interview. It gives the impression that she was told what to say/ask.

I don't think it's too much to expect an interviewer to do their fact-checking homework -- without the "parent's" help -- to think for themselves & to flavor the interview with non-partisan questions, which provides a little genuineness in informing the viewer.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. Jesus, That Was Disgusting

Good thing Howard Dean was there to cleanse me with his uncompromising answers. Well, I know one Spongebob network I won't be watching for nooze.

[hippiechick]

6. She makes my skin crawl.

I simply cannot stand the way she always tilts her head to the side -- is that supposed to be cute?
And the on/off with the glasses thing .... WTF ?

Someone please tell me why this woman is paid zillions of dollars ? :shrug:

[pacalo]

7. The on-off-glasses thingy is for effect -- she's showing indignation.

As for why she's paid so much, chalk it up to the power of a woman. Lots (just qualifying that for the men's sake) of men think with their Johnsons & are easily suckered in by the flirty, perky cheerleader act. She's paid by men.

On the other hand, women can read other women as easily as looking through a window pane.

[KansDem]

9. "Good evening, this is CBS Evening News. Some people say..."

And she practices the Faux News "some people say" tactic...

Will this be the way CBS Evening News will began its broadcast each evening?

The Democrats took a lot of money from Jack Abramoff.
Is this the exchange when Dean challenged her assertion, and she backed down by saying something to the effect "We'll check on that and get back to you..."

I wonder, did she ever "get back with us?"

[pacalo]

12. Media Matters has the video of Matt Lauer's "non-correction"...

Couric apparently ducked out.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601270003

LAUER: Katie pressed him on that, and then we -- we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and we found out that, technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats.

Indian tribes have given to Democrats for years because the Democratic party represents their interests. Two completely different relationships to the Indian tribes connect Abramoff to the Democrats, & these relationships -- Abramoff's political shakedown & the Indians' campaign contributions to the Democrats -- aren't connected.

[Ignacio Upton]

14. Most of the tribes also donated a smaller proportion to Democrats

After Abramoff represented them. He told them to donate more money to Republicans!

[zulchzulu]

15. Good night...and good luck....

Murrow is rolling over in his grave.

[pacalo]

16. That says it all. Murrow *cared* about integrity in the news.