Second Lady, Second-Guessing

(AP)

Upon arriving at the office today, this writer came upon a blog post about "CBS Sunday Morning" correspondent Rita Braver's conversation with Lynne Cheney. The post began:

CBS News correspondent Rita Braver's brown-nose interview with Lynne Cheney on Sunday was reason number 1,342 why I am cynical toward and very distrustful of the mainstream corporate media.

The author of the post, Micheal Petrelis, took issue with two main points:

The lighter tone of the interview.

The fact that Rita Braver's husband is the lawyer who represents Lynne Cheney with publishers. It's important to note that Braver disclosed this herself during the interview.

I began a conversation with Braver about this issue early today, before finding out the conversation had widened to a couple of letters on Jim Romenesko's MediaNews – the go-to site for a daily climate check of MediaLand. (It's so "go-to," we direct you to go to it in the list to the right ----->.)

There I found a letter from David Fluhrer, a self-described "public relations consultant with a healthy respect for journalism," raising the same points as Petrelis -- where he called the interview "fawning." And another from Lee Rood at the Des Moines Register.

In order to get a sense of the decision-making process, I got in touch with Rand Morrison, the Executive Producer of "CBS Sunday Morning" and shared with him the concerns out there in the blogosphere.

Here is his response:

Rita Braver is our Sunday Morning Washington-based correspondent. In that role, she regularly talks with political figures of all persuasions -- from Laura Bush to former Attorney General John Ashcroft to presidential hopeful John Edwards to, yes, Lynne Cheney. Similarly, her husband, Bob Barnett, represents a number of prominent Washington personalities -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals.

Ms. Braver – who over the years has served CBS News as Chief White House correspondent and Law correspondent – disclosed her husband's role with the Cheney book on the air during her story for all of our viewers to know. And despite the fact that Ms. Cheney's book is an autobiography devoted to a recounting of her young years growing up in Wyoming, Braver asked a variety of questions pertaining to the current political climate. Among them – quoting directly:

"There are people out making speeches all the time saying this will go down as the worst Administration in American history…"

And on the matter of the conduct of the Iraq war…

"Do you think 20 years from now we'll say 'Look, we made a big difference in Iraq'? Or will we look back and say 'It was a mistake'?"

Given the above queries, it seems harsh, to put it mildly, to characterize the Sunday Morning interview as "fawning."

[dtolman]

Have any of these posters even seen Sunday Morning? Every interview on that show is designed to be a puff piece - its a lighter side of the news show. The centerpiece of it wasn''t the interview - it was the tour of the house. Sheesh.

[irarallen]

Why does a famous person writing a book deserve to have that book promoted by a news operation? If it is a trade-off for access, than the questions ought to be a lot tougher. Did Cheney choose Braver, the way the White House wanted NPR to choose Juan Williams? If Cheney were being "offered," then it is up to CBS to determine the interviewer.

[jchairy]

CBS, once again, looks ridiculous. They, as evidenced by this producer''s comments, are so out of touch they don''t even know they''re out of touch. Which is fitting. I don''t care about all Braver''s impressive credentials as a White House reporter or if she''s the queen of Sheba. She was the wrong person to conduct this interview. This, together with the Clarence Thomas interview, shows that CBS is not really a credible news organization.

[mattcat25]

Dr. Lynn Cheney wrote a book called %u201CSisters%u201D in the early 1980%u2019s. The book is a feministic view about frontier Women of Wyoming in the 19th Century. The book is scandalous to say the least and is chock-full of fornication, adultery, contraception, lesbianism, and incest. Along with violence and corruption fill the pages.

It would appear that Dr. Cheney held a vision of some real liberal views concerning independent woman when she wrote this book, and could be considered somewhat of a hypocrite today. Or, I might say to her %u201Cyou%u2019ve come along way baby!%u201D

[justablogger]

I see where you are all coming from and I do agree to an extent. But when I listened to the clip of the interview it didn''t strike me as being an important segment in today''s news. I think it was a relaxed interview that lacked a solid purpose. I could greater relate to all of your views if the topics they discussed were more substantial, but they weren''t. I think CBS was attempting to draw in another audience for the segment. (Perhaps a mom that doesn''t ever sit down to watch news, but for some unknown reason is intrigued by interviews such as this.) For those of you who didn''t watch the clip, they discussed things such as *** and Lynne''s High school years, growing up, art displayed in their house, not breaking news. It was a weak interview indeed; I think we can all agree on that. However, the intent was not to be a top story or have lots of imperative information, just a small news segment, looking to gain a new audience%u2019s attention.

[democracynow-2009]

I would just like to comment on the following remarks by justablogger to make a point and not to criticize the poster: "Why should Braver have to limit her career? Is she supposed to be forbidden from interviewing Lynne Cheney simply because Braver%u2019s husband helped with the publishing of Cheney%u2019s books?"

In journalism as it''s supposed to be practiced, she would have to limit her career and would be forbidden from interviewing those contributing to her family income. Yes, journalists make certain sacrifices. They usually can''t make campaign contributions. They can''t cover companies or people from whom they derive some benefit. Some journalists are prevented from buying stock (although we''ve seen a relaxation of this, where some writers are allowed to pump a stock and then disclose that they have a position). In general, journalists shouldn''t be doing anything that even hints that they can''t be fair and objective in performing their duties.

My point is that a majority of the American public -- including some of this country''s most intelligent and dynamic people -- doesn''t have a clue as to how journalism works or why these standards are so important to the believability of news stories and to the preservation of democracy. If we don''t oppose these ethical breaches, there will come a point where you won''t be able to believe anything you read, hear or see in the media -- and that''s regardless of your politics.

[stevencee]

I must concur with the other comment-makers. I wonder, and not just with CBS (who for decades I watched religiously, & held in high journalistic regard), whatever happened to REAL, HARD-HITTING, TRUTH-SEEKING, JOURNALISM?
Especially when it comes to "interviews", where the requisite one or two "hard questions" (as those mentioned above) are tossed, batted away with spin or outright lies, only to have the "reporter" move on along to something else!

I''m truly flabbergasted at the sophomoric, & transparently lame attempts to make news reports/interviews today appear to serve the true mission of a "free press", and very, very sad.

Softball questions, obsession with the irrelevant & the minutiae, while over-the-top, rude demagoguery, (as in Pelley''s "inquisition" of Ahmadinejad) substitutes for "hard-hitting".

[tomtraubert-2009]

Those weren''t tough questions. I already know what Mrs. Cheney answered, without seeing the interview. And I already know that she was allowed to spout her points and there were no follow-up questions on those subjects.

She may as well have asked "Lynn, dear, those terrible people are saying terrible things about you. Do you have an answer for them?"

Your post just confirms my opinion that there is so much incest in Washington and it is so deeply imbedded that you in the media don''t even recognize how corrupt and destructive it is. And, it IS corrupt and destructive.

I agree with Mr. edwardallen5: Please name the liberals.

It appears that theCBS "executive producers" of news might need a refresher course in journalism 101 and media ethics, given this conflict, Couric''s plagiarism, and the supremely condescending attitude the exhibit towards their audience.

[justablogger]

I don''t think Braver conducting this interview was necessarily a bad thing. I think the purpose of this interview was not substantial enough to accuse Braver or the CBS producers of anything. I find it hard to believe that her relationship to Cheney altered the interview in any form. I believe that it was more coincidental then anything. Why should Braver have to limit her career? Is she supposed to be forbidden from interviewing Lynne Cheney simply because Braver%u2019s husband helped with the publishing of Cheney%u2019s books? It is a small world, get over it.

[edwardallen5]

Boy, those are sure two really tough questions. I bet Lynne is breathing fire about being asked them.
But you also say Braver''s husband represents liberals. Oh, yes. Name them. Let''s see, is Bill Bennett a liberal? Or is Bob Woodward a liberal? Karen Hughes? Ari Fleischer? I see he represented Bill Clinton, but I doubt anyone worth his Democratic credentials would claim Clinton is liberal.
Lastly, there are an array of Washington reporters who could have conducted this interview. Why Rita Braver, given the conflict-of-interest was so clear she had to mention it on air?