Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

David Sirota on HuffPo: "Et tu, Katie Couric?" A Must-Read!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:45 AM
Original message
David Sirota on HuffPo: "Et tu, Katie Couric?" A Must-Read!
David Sirota: Et tu, Katie Couric?

The Huffington Post Blog
March 26, 2206
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/et-tu-katie-couric_b_44256.html

I, like many people, find it nauseating that the professional political pontificators seem unable to contain their desire to apply horse-race analysis to Elizabeth Edwards' announcement that she has life-threatening cancer. From CNN, to Time Magazine to Rush Limbaugh, the national political chattering class has this week truly earned its well-deserved reputation as a group of people dominated by egomaniacal, self-absorbed freaks wholly and completely out of touch with even the most basic sense of decency.

Perhaps the most disturbing display of all, however, was 60 Minutes' Katie Couric. She spent most of her interview with the Edwardses behaving like a prosecutor, cross-examining them about why they are going forward with the presidential campaign. And when I say "interrogate" I mean interrogate. This was no ordinary interview - this was a televised guilt trip. She stated as fact to John Edwards that he is supposedly "putting your work first, and your family second." She also pulled the "some say" technique, claiming that an unnamed "some" say that in making this decision, Edwards is displaying "a case of insatiable ambition."

In pursuing this line of repeated questioning, of course, Couric ignored the pretty well-known psychological value of work during health care crises. She also ignored the fact that this is an immensely personal decision that does not require some multimillion-dollar journalist to perform a televised, Gitmo-style interrogation in order for viewers at home to glean the "news value." And most incredibly, she ignored her own behavior when her spouse was diagnosed with cancer.

That's right, Katie Couric's husband was diagnosed with cancer in 1997. I did a quick check of the transcripts for that year - and it's pretty clear that she kept working as the anchor for NBC's Today Show, if not full time, then pretty close to it.

I want to be extremely clear: That Couric continued to work while her husband was sick was entirely her and her family's personal decision. I'm not going to comment on the merits of that decision not because I think it was a bad one or a good one, but because it's AN ENTIRELY PERSONAL DECISION. Really, who the hell am I - and who the hell is anyone else - to question someone's decision to keep working during a family health crisis?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/et-tu-katie-couric_b_44256.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. who the hell is anyone else - to question someone's decision to keep working during a family health
crisis?

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Time for a complete media freeze-out by the Dems
Appear on CSPAN and Air America only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. we have a better chance of seeing god . . . n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winston61 Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
3. Anyone who listens to and takes seriously anything
Couric says gets what they deserve. What a waste of oxygen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. "Some say" Katie Couric is a pale carbon of Cronkite...
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wizstars Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. "Some say" Couric is a journalist.....
....that's authoritative in my book..:sarcasm:
Uh-huh, yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. How DARE you insult Cronkite like that!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. I watched that interview. Couric was pure slime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
8. When did she interview rudi he had prostrate cancer
should he be running..since he is the one who had cancer he would be the one to be more physically and mentality challenged. I haven't heard a word from all the republican right wing spewers about him...Scarbrough was having such a fit yesterday I haven't hear him mention rudi's cancer once.

And I don't remember, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, or the Saint Ronald Reagan resigning from office when their wives had breast cancer. THEY WERE PRESIDENTS AND A VICE PRESIDENT AND SHOULDN'T IT HAVE EFFECTED THEY WAY "THEY" RAN THE COUNTY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. One of the things that I don't get (I know, I know) is why did Couric do it?
The audience who was watching "60 Minutes" last Sunday could be divided into at least 4 groups:
1) Those who hate the Edwards regardless of any consideration - very small %.

2) Those who are relatively neutral on the Edwards, but are sympathetic to Elizabeth's disease - large %.

3) Those who identify with any cancer sufferer and support them regardless of any other issue - relatively large %.

4) Those who love the Edwards and feel powerful, strong support for them - small %.

And nearly all of this audience is over 40 and at least feel the presence of cancer in life.

This was just a bad/bad scenario for Couric to do a slime/hit job on this very sympathetic couple. Her unrelenting grilling of the Edwards was ugly to see and difficult to understand. The only thing I can see as a negative for John is that if it had been me I would have told the little ass-sucker to fuck-off. I would have told her that condescension and judgmental superiority is exactly the things that disease sufferers do not need. People who find themselves in the Edwards' situation are not suddenly children, they aren't all-at-once people who must have their motives supervised and their actions directed. Sympathy, support, understanding is all that is needed and all that any decent human being would consider extending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftyladyfrommo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I don't understand why the Edward's even did that interview.
They should have gone with Charlie Gibson - well just about anyone would have been better than Couric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Really excellent post, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. As usual with winger assaults on good people, they are hoping
that if they fling shit constantly for 18 months, enough will stick so that their candidate can steal the election next fall. It matters ot whether it's true. If you don't think it will work, just look at how we got stuck with the stupidest, most corrupt Resident in history. Smirk, a stupid, ignorant, elitist, unqualified coke-head, ran against one of the most qualified men ever to run for president. But the accumulation of lies, half-truths, rumors, and slander managed to confuse enough ignorant americans that somehow he got to live in the white house.

Get ready for 18 months of this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-27-07 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. no ordinary interview -- ...a televised guilty trip (Spot On)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC