And some people are vicious, irresponsible hypocrites posing as journalists
The interviewer, it has come to my attention, is herself a cancer survivor and mother of two, who, when her husband was diagnosed, stayed at her job as her husband died. So then what is this interview? Partisan politics, blind hateful personal attack, or disguised self-flaggelation?
This is pretty terrifying. Are all American politics like this, or what?
Some people have been saying it is.
It’s as if she went to the FOX News school for asking questions when actually editorializing.
Some people have been suggesting just that.
Has that clip been edited? It just seems so bizarre.
Yeah, all of their answers were edited out.
I don’t know which is weirder — the idea of her just going on like that for a couple of minutes, or continuing to ask press on the attack even after they’ve responded. It’d be easier to tell if I heard the questions, I guess.
Some people have been saying that the interview hasn’t been edited at all, that it ran exactly as the YouTube clip does.
Some people would think the split seconds of Edwards starting to speak would mean that someone had edited it. So, you can see how some people would be upset if their answers were edited out.
Some people would say this sort of fallacious rhetoric is the bread and butter of the right when they’re most desperate. But then for some people it just leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
Some people are saying that Katie Couric fucks dogs.
But Todd, you can’t blame Katie for the contents of this interview! She’s merely expressing the concerns of Some People who, obviously, are heartless bastards. Katie’ll be the first to tell you that.
Some people are going to start calling American journalists on their bullshit.
Some people might object to the classification of Katie Couric as a “journalist.”
If you’re going to ask a question, Katie, just sack up and ask it. The “some people” thing is such a fucking cop out and is utterly disgusting to watch.
But she doesn’t have a question, that’s the problem. She has a statement to make, and if she simply stated it, it would be: “John Edwards, you are doing now what I did a few years ago; you are pressing ahead with your work in spite of your spouse’s terminal illness and in spite of the impact your decision might have on your children. As a puppet of the right-controlled media, it is my duty, however hypocritical, to point this out, repeatedly, ad nauseum. I may or may not hate myself for decisions I’ve made, but I’m nevertheless going to do everything in my power to incriminate you for this.”
Yuck! That left a nasty taste in my mouth.
Even if their answers were edited out, they way she asked those questions was very distasteful.
“Im glad I could teach you something”
Smug Bitch!
Could it be fluffball journalist playing at being hard-ball journalist while not being able to find her hinder with both hands and a mirrored room? I am probably being too flip – looking over her wiki entry, she certainly ought to know better.
I was actually expecting something much worse from the reaction it has provoked on a variety of political blogs – it is pretty awful in its the blatant “your campaign seems to be more important than the health of your wife” slant.
Could it be that she just homed in the cheesy human interest angle and couldn’t let go? Kind of like a lot of the olympic athlete supplemental info the commentators often run with in an effort to add interest ( for example recall the Punsalan business back in the 94 winter olympics – I probably wouldn’t have included that in the live event commentary, but CBS did.)
I hope it isn’t just a partisan thing – many of the presidential hopefuls have enough skeletons to outfit a graveyard, and it would be a shame if this new inquisitiveness was just for Edwards.
It’s not the inquisitiveness that bothers me, it’s the shitty journalism. The “some people” question is a total crock — it’s a vicious trick on the part of the interviewer to push an agenda into the conversation.
As in: Noskilz, some people are saying you chain up little girls in a dungeon and then eat their brains. What do you say to those people? The “some people” don’t exist, I just made them up. That she would pull that kind of stunt, over and over again, in this interview at this stage of the game, is just appalling. It’s a cheap trick and I just wish Edwards had called her on it instead of taking her seriously. Some people should drag Katie Couric into the public square and hack her into little pieces.
I understand the technique – I was being a bit sarcastic towards Ms. Couric in wondering if she would be quite a concerned about the happy family relationships of some of the other hopefuls(say, Gingrich or Guiliani.) It could have been phrased better.
– And I suppose a mostly idle hope along the lines of not ascribing to malice what might be adequately explained by incompetence, which is sort of a lose/lose proposition anyway.
things I love about this;
1. How she talks about his wife’s death in the third person while she is sitting right there.
2. “I would put my family first, always”
3. The smirk that the interviewer has on her face.
I disagree that Couric hasn’t asked a question. She asks if he can understand the reasonable concern that a person who would be president of the United States might get distracted from his duties due to health issues his spouse is facing. This is a legitimate question. In this clip, Edwards’ answer is left out. If she were to ask, say, Giuliani if the fact that two of his marriages failed, that he is a known adulterer, and his relationship with his children seems strained might reflect on his ability to make sound judgments when the welfare of a nation is at stake; might he be “distracted” by his familial struggles should the nation find itself facing another disastrous hurricane or terrorist attack, we here on the left would cheer mightily. “Some people” ARE saying the things she reports to Edwards. Perhaps, in the omitted answers, Edwards asks her the same questions you do. Like, “Well, what did you do when you found out your husband had cancer? Did you quit your job to stay with your family? Or did you feel like they would be better served if you stayed at your high-paying job which you must have felt was doing a great service to those Americans who needed to get the latest scoop on American Idol contestants?” The Edwardses put this into the public spotlight and must be prepared to face tough questions like this. Otherwise, how are we to know that his IDEAS ARE BETTER than the candidates on the other side? Hell, every time Romney gets interviewed it seems like they only ask him what it’s like to be a Mormon.
Some people are wondering if your sexual attraction to Katie Couric is clouding your judgment of her journalistic skills.
Let’s say there are “some people” who are asking the question you pose. Who are they? Why can’t she just name one? “Senator Edwards, James Dobson said the other day bla de bla.” Or “Senator Edwards, Prominent Democrat _____ has spoken of the importance of bla de bla.”
In any case, Edwards (and his wife) did answer the question, of course. But they didn’t give the answer Couric was looking for, so she kept “asking” it again, turning his answer into a de facto evasion: why can’t he just answer the question?
Now let’s go back to 2000. GWB is an alcoholic, a drug addict, a drunk driver, etc etc etc. GWB gets up in front of the press and says “I did those things when I was 40. They don’t count any more. You can’t ask me about them.” And the press says “Oh. Okay. I guess we can’t.” Why?
If the press asked Giuliani if his family problems would distract him from his duties as president, it would indeed be bullshit. But if they asked him how he can run as a conservative Republican on a morals platform after living a distinctly non-Republican (whatever that’s supposed to mean) lifestyle, that’s absolutely a legitimate question, the same way they should have asked Ronald Reagan how he can legislate family values after having a divorce and child out of wedlock. But didn’t.
The idea that a potential president might be “distracted” from national affairs because of his wife’s terminal illness is not a legitimate question. It’s a bullshit question asked (over and over and over again) by a “journalist” who’s trying to create a story that doesn’t exist, trying to put a cloud over a candidate, trying to turn virtues (courage and commitment) into vices through lies and innuendo (a move straight from the Karl Rove playbook). Why would one “ask” such a “question?” Everyone faces crises in their family life and everyone has skeletons in their closets. Why should a potential president be any different?
(And let me just add that I have no particular rooting interest in Edwards — to me he’s just another politician who wants something. The “courage” and “commitment” I speak of exist, most likely, only in the magic fairyland of ideals, and it is most likely purely coincidental that they happen to serve him in his pursuit of his goal. I post this not to praise Edwards but to condemn Couric and the total bullshit journalistic style she embodies.
And yes, the campaign process should reveal which candidates IDEAS ARE BETTER. But how does Couric’s “some people” question do that?
Oh come on. Everybody knows that my heart belongs to Paula Zahn.
If we go back to Bush’s campaign of 2000, it’s a well-known theory that the reason he lost the popular vote was the reluctance of his vaunted Christian base to come out in force due to revelations that he was a cokeheaded drunk. Many also blame the failure of Reagan’s 1976 bid on the fact that he was divorced. Going back to Kennedy, they also thought he couldn’t get elected because he was Catholic. These are questions the American people have. Journalists are just asking what’s on everyone’s mind. The press is too easy a target. Substantial information is out there and readily available via our excellent free press. What is Obama’s stand on the crisis in Congo? What does Chris Dodd propose to do about international treaties? Does Hillary have what it takes to save Medicare? If that information isn’t available right at this second, it will appear during the course of the campaign because dweebs with notepads or hotties with camera crews are relentlessly demanding answers from our would-be leaders.
The larger problem is that if Katie Couric were to give Edwards the whole half hour on CBS to outline his healthcare policy in detail, her ratings would be worse than they already are. Is that her fault? No. It’s ours. Because we get bored too easily. Policy, as opposed to Politics, is really boring stuff. Katie Couric is in the business of selling people soap — the more people see her soap ads, the better for her and her employers. How does she trick people into watching her? She gets John Edwards to tell us how he could possibly in the face of his wife’s blah blah blah. The same way Jon Stewart gets Doris Kearns Goodwin to refute something John Bolton said the night before. The same way Sean Hannity asks Alberto Gonzales how it feels to be so persecuted. The same way Simon Cowell gets to insult mildly talented singers.
So in the end, what do we base our votes on? Mostly it’s perception. And in that light, her question about whether or not he’d be distracted by family issues is perfectly in bounds. We want our leaders to LOOK presidential, first. We assume that because they look leaderish, they have the chops to get that damn Justice Department in line. John Kerry looked like a president. More than Howard “Screamin’ Like I’m Edvard Munch” Dean. That’s why he got the nomination. When he started to look like a pussy for not answering the attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans, it all went downhill for him.
Presidential Candidates need to know this and need to be smart and disciplined enough to breeze past this. That way they can focus on expressing the IDEAS THAT ARE BETTER and help us dumbass consituents figure out what’s really important. Blaming the press for the lack of substance in their reporting is like blaming critics for terrible movies. I want my presidential candidate to effortlessly answer any questions of character so we can set them aside and get to the more important question of ability. The pressure belongs on the candidate. Blaming the press sidesteps the issue.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Katie Couric’s “question” is a legitimate one. Okay, she asks it. And Edwards answers it. Why then does she ask it again? And again? And again? And again? Why do that if one is not pushing an agenda?
And why do you jump to the Congo as an issue Obama should have an interest in? How come he doesn’t get the international treaties question?
Thank you for reminding me that Bush stole the election, twice, and that the past six years have been illegitimate rule. Maybe that’s where the Democrats should begin their investigations.
Substantial information is certainly out there, but I get very little of it via our [adjective deleted] free press. As I’ve mentioned, I don’t watch TV news at all any more. I can’t, it’s too painful. Fox News has pulled the center so far over to the right that it’s ruined it for everyone. It’s all bullshit, starting with Fox and working down to CNN.