Katie Couric On Last Night's 'Full Disclosure'

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: CBS News Issues

(CBS)

Yesterday on the "Evening News," anchor Katie Couric interviewed actor and activist Michael J. Fox. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has been in the spotlight over an ad in which he lauds Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill and criticizes McCaskill opponent Jim Talent over their positions on stem cell research. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has suggested that Fox, whose body was rocking from side to side during the ad, was "either off his medication or acting" when he filmed the spot.

After her interview with Fox, Couric said the following: "By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I think it's important to mention that my dad has Parkinson's disease. He told me today it's okay to tell you that. And in the past, I've made contributions for Parkinson's research through Michael J. Fox's foundation."

I asked Couric about the disclosure.

"The reason I donated to his foundation is because of my father. It was a combination of my admiration for Michael and my personal experience with my dad," she said. Couric said she had introduced people at events for Fox's foundation in the past, and she didn't want people to suggest she was trying to hide her connection to him.

Did her personal experience with Parkinson's influence the way that she conducted the interview or framed the story?

"I don't feel like it really reflected or influenced my approach," said Couric.

"I think I probably have even more sympathy for his situation, and I think I understand the science better than some other people," she said. "But I challenged him on questions people who support stem cell research would not necessarily want asked" – such as ethical "slippery slope" questions inherent in embryonic stem cell research and the notion that such research could conceivably be done exclusively in the private sector.

Couric also said she "wanted to be responsible to Rush Limbaugh's true feelings." She said many news outlets only excerpted the most incendiary clip of Limbaugh's comments, and that it was important to provide a full accounting of his views. During the interview with Fox, Couric read a comment that Limbaugh made directly to the "Evening News."

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

10 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by kiwi_chick October 29, 2006 3:22 PM EST: I would like to address the outrage that many felt, both Republicans and Democrats, regarding Mr. Limbaugh's unfounded accusations that Michael Fox was perpetrating a fraud when shaking and twitching when he appeared on an advertisement in support of embryonic stem cell research. It seems to me that alot of people have forgotten that ECR is an issue that will be taken to the polls and will be decided by the voting public. Whether you are for or against ECR, every United States citizen who believes in the Constitution, should be disgusted by Mr. Limbaugh's inserting baseless assertions on Mr. Fox's disease. The right to freedom of speech surely does not include spewing hateful, unfounded accusations, that have no basis in fact, at others.

JAZaimot is a perfect example of what this country is coming to. Instead of presenting a coherent, responsible and rational argument, he or she takes the lowest of the low roads and resorts to regurgitating vomit and completely missing the point of the Couric interview. Mind you, Rush may have been speaking from some experience when he later backtracked and commented that Mr. Fox may have been off his meds to explain the shakiness. What is your excuse JAZaimot?; Reply to this comment


by rdwngs4evr October 28, 2006 6:28 PM EDT: The interview was informative and unbiased.It sparked memories of Cronkite moments.I was unaware of Katie's father enduring Parkinson's disease.Hopefully this program cast a light on the empire's dark seeded refusal to fund stem cell research.Would the administration have a different view if,say,Barbara Bush or Lynn Cheney suffered from Alzhiemer's or Parkinson's.Or someone they loved had a spinal cord injury?How hypocritical Big Brother seems while preaching about a right to life.I am the same age as Michael J. Fox,and feel that I have grown up with him.I have lost a father and sister recently.Could research have cured their ailments?Unfortunately for our family,and many more like us,we will never know.Thank you for the work you are doing at CBS.It is appreciated.; Reply to this comment


by jcatcws October 28, 2006 4:06 PM EDT: I have always enjoyed MJF. I am concerned that he has been so deceived by the potential of Embryonic SCR (stem cell research). In over 20 years of Embryonic SCR, not even one mouse has helped another mouse!

Embryonic SCR is being done on human embryos. It's legal because there are few laws that limit it, even though it does require killing an embryo, a human being in the 2nd stage of development, a scientific fact not a religious position.

Embryonic stem cells have only grown uncontrollably into mutations & tumors.

NO SUCCESS, IMMORAL, Why The Campaign For Embryonic SCR? MONEY

Large corporations & individuals have invested BILLIONS into Embryonic SCR to no avail. Of course they are reluctant to invest further and so why not go after tax money?

Bio-tech lawyers wrote MO's Amendment2.

The bio-tech industry has invested $30,000,000 to promote politicians in favor of Embryonic SCR.

Press releases from the bio-tech industry credit Embryonic SCR with the successes of Adult SCR by not differentiating between the 2 types of stem cell research. ADULT SCR Has Developed 72 Treatments, Helping Hundreds of Thousands of Patients, Giving Investors a Return on Their Investment

MO's Amendment2 sounds like its banning cloning, a branch of Embryonic SCR, when in reality it not only protects cloning, it funds it. If MO funds any disease research, MO will be forced to give equal MO tax $ to the cloners. No amendment has guaranteed funds to an industry. www.stemcellresearch.org www.nocloning.org; Reply to this comment


by jcatcws October 28, 2006 4:05 PM EDT: To those who say they are for stem cell research:

I cannot emphasize how important it is for everyone to differentiate between the 2 kinds of stem cell research (SCR). To say, I am for stem cell research, is vague as there is a huge difference between Embryonic SCR and Adult SCR.

Embryonic SCR is SCR on stem cells taken from an embryo. Adult SCR is SCR on everything else, including the umbilical cord, the nose, eyelid, bone marrow, etc. Store your baby%u2019s umbilical cord in a Cord Bank to avoid rejection problems from embryonic stem cells!

72 to Zero
As of October 2006, adult stem cell research has resulted in 72 cures/treatments, helping hundreds of thousands of people. Embryonic research has resulted in none/zero/zip. Not even has one mouse cured another mouse in over 20 years & BILLIONS$ of Embryonic SCR! Adult SCR has made money for investors. Embryonic SCR has not, and so, the investors are after our tax money.

To Kill or Not to Kill
Embryonic stem cell research requires the killing of an unborn human embryo. Adult stem cell research does not. Don%u2019t let the latest reports fool you. Never has an embryo survived having stem cells removed. If an embryo would survive, what kind of disabled adult would an embryo become after having 10% of his stem cells removed?

Press releases by the bio-tech industry credit Embryonic SCR with the successes of Adult SCR by not differentiating between the 2 types of stem cell research. Always differentiate!; Reply to this comment


by bmidji October 28, 2006 2:45 PM EDT: Deggans!

You liberals are so boastful about having All The Answers that you're avoiding the main, scientific point: embryonic stem cells have NOT helped one, not one patient.

It cannot be said, if one is paying close attention to science, which is based on proving hypotheses, that favoring more embryo-destroying research is the same thing as favoring a KNOWN cure. There is no known cure in embryo-destroying research. Tim G.; Reply to this comment


by jls0802 October 28, 2006 12:22 PM EDT: This is a good example of the BALANCE BIAS in the media. News organizations have been cowed by rigorous attacks (a lot from well organized conservative groups who bombard them with e-mails and blog posts, also from progressives yelling about their side of the story) to the point where they feel responsibe to tell two equal sides of every story even when the two sides are not both based on reasonable supportable premises. EXAMPLE: Global warming. There IS no debate as to whether our emissions are contributing to the phenomenon. The "science" claiming that we are not is UNSUPPORTABLE. EXAMPLE: Intelligent design vs. Evolution. Fair and balanced does not mean equal time for someone who claims the moon is made of green cheese just because you had someone on saying it is made of rock. CBS, Katie, don't be afraid to tell the truth. It's where this country and the world is headed. Trust me.; Reply to this comment


by rogerbru-2009 October 28, 2006 4:11 AM EDT: As a critic of some of CBS News's history, I had doubts about Katie Couric's ability to succeed as its new anchor-in-chief. Until Thursday night. By devoting ten precious minutes of her broadcast to allow Michael J. Fox to respond to Rush Limbaugh's widely publicized calumny, Couric proved her grit. This is a woman of steel with a heart of gold. As a matter of journalistic ethics, her disclosures were entirely proper and had no bearing on the facts of the story.

I still have problems with the course that the Evening News has taken since September 5, which I intend to discuss later in another forum. For now, I am coming to the belief that CBS News has indeed found a new leader who shows signs of developing her own unique voice.

Roger Bruce Feinman; Reply to this comment


by memekiller October 28, 2006 3:31 AM EDT: It's amazing that Couric can have a father with Parkinson's, and still be such a willing tool of a campaign to change the subject from stem cell research to Fox's symptoms. Why do the ignorant smears of some blowhard take precedence over, say, whether or not the ACCUSERS are engaging in some unsavory behavior. How disconnected are today's journalists from reason that they can do this?; Reply to this comment


by deggans October 27, 2006 9:41 PM EDT: I have a different take on this, which I posted on my own media blog yesterday:

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2006/10/michael_j_fox_p.html

Because of her friendship with Michael J. Fox, her experience with Parkinson's and her past donations, Couric knew that much of what Limbaugh was saying about Fox was horse puckey. I think one of the problems journalists trying to play the fairness game face with unscrupulous pundits such as Limbaugh, is their williness to advance patently nonsensical ideas as genuine discourse.

I think Couric, unfortunately, gave Limbaugh's criticisms much more weight than they deserved. And it is, in the end, a journalist's job to discern between valid criticsms and cheap, nonsensical shots...; Reply to this comment


by bmidji October 27, 2006 7:47 PM EDT: Brian, thanks for asking about this, and it is right for Katie Couric to offer some disclosure. (She did not do so this morning on The Early Show.) But this is not full disclosure. Couric has not merely contributed to the Fox Foundation, she has made appearances at their fundraisers, loaning her glamour and celebrity, not just her money.

Her raising of the "uncomfortable" issues was nice, but vague. Opponents of government funding for embryo-destroying research would have liked a tougher question about the text of these ads, that Fox claimed Republicans were for "criminalizing" science and were opposed to "life-saving" cures. There is obviously a scientific difference between a cure, and just a hope for a cure. Tim g; Reply to this comment