DeclinetoState
07-25-2008, 11:27 PM
It is one thing when a bubbly cutie from a morning show lands a massive give as the first woman nightly news caster and then fails miserably because her intellect is not quite as capable of dealing with reality after 5 PM. That kind spectacular failure is the failure of the network to adequately take into account the limitations of the person they are hiring. One could hardly blame Katie Couric for taking a job for that much money. One can, however, entirely blame her employers for their idiocy.
But to fabricate a part of an interview in order to make the person being interviewed appear in a more favorable light is a whole other situation. This type of situation is entirely unethical and entirely a violation of all journalistic principles. Instead of informing the public, Couric's interview simply acted to showcase the best features of the person she interviewed, John McCain. Instead of giving the public all the information they need by which to make an educated choice about something as serious as a Presidential candidate, Couric acted as a public relations specialist instead. Couric is no journalist, that was clear early on. What is is now, however, is not even a credible talking head.
This is what AmericaBlog has to say about the behaviour of Couric in this instance:
This one is hard to even explain, it's so bizarre. McCain, looking just awful on camera, made yet another major gaffe about national security policy, on CBS. So what did Katie Couric do? She aired the interview with McCain, aired the question that led to the gaffe, and then inserted an "answer" to the question that wasn't the real gaffe-filled answer - it was something McCain said in a total other part of the interview. It's absolutely astounding how far the corporate media is willing to go in order to defend John McCain.
I don't know if we can blame the whole corporate media for this. But we can certainly blame Ms. Couric directly for being unethical, and in violation of the most basic of standards.
Larisa Alexandrovna (http://www.atlargely.com/2008/07/katie-couric-ne.html#more)
The real reason the left wants her fired is for her repeatedly trying to pin down Barack Obama on what exactly his opinions were of the surge. (He's been saying that it was successful, but that he still opposes it—or soemthing like that.)
But to fabricate a part of an interview in order to make the person being interviewed appear in a more favorable light is a whole other situation. This type of situation is entirely unethical and entirely a violation of all journalistic principles. Instead of informing the public, Couric's interview simply acted to showcase the best features of the person she interviewed, John McCain. Instead of giving the public all the information they need by which to make an educated choice about something as serious as a Presidential candidate, Couric acted as a public relations specialist instead. Couric is no journalist, that was clear early on. What is is now, however, is not even a credible talking head.
This is what AmericaBlog has to say about the behaviour of Couric in this instance:
This one is hard to even explain, it's so bizarre. McCain, looking just awful on camera, made yet another major gaffe about national security policy, on CBS. So what did Katie Couric do? She aired the interview with McCain, aired the question that led to the gaffe, and then inserted an "answer" to the question that wasn't the real gaffe-filled answer - it was something McCain said in a total other part of the interview. It's absolutely astounding how far the corporate media is willing to go in order to defend John McCain.
I don't know if we can blame the whole corporate media for this. But we can certainly blame Ms. Couric directly for being unethical, and in violation of the most basic of standards.
Larisa Alexandrovna (http://www.atlargely.com/2008/07/katie-couric-ne.html#more)
The real reason the left wants her fired is for her repeatedly trying to pin down Barack Obama on what exactly his opinions were of the surge. (He's been saying that it was successful, but that he still opposes it—or soemthing like that.)