Comments on: Katie's Interview: John Edwards Responds

[tilden1876]

What a lame, self-serving, sleazy posting. It is so telling that the only outside blog you cite is Dan Goldberg%u2019s equally lame comments at CJR. Let%u2019s review. Couric conducts an interview many of us thought sensationist, unprofessional, and biased, and Goldberg%u2019s response (that you are so quick to promote and feature) is to suggest we are all bigoted chauvinists. He might of considered or debated the merits of the criticism. For that matter, you might of done so on this blog. But no, so much easier to cry %u201Csexism!%u201D

For the record, some of us find the prosecutorial tone, the hearsay framing of the questions, the fairly blunt assault on marital character, the insinuating manner, and the rest of the bag of tricks Ms. Couric employed as abhorrent when used by any of her male confederates in the news business as when used by her. If there is a double standard here, it is only in that many of us hoped that CBS News and its main anchor would live up to its often promoted standards and traditions rather than ape those of Fox News and other Murdoch style tabloids.

P.S. - It is a clear sign of the celebrity tabloid driven mentality behind the way CBS approached this interview that they cite the Edwards%u2019s expressed satisfaction with the interview as a defense. As if they responsibility is to the Edwards rather than the truth or the public interest. I don%u2019t give a *** how the Edwards's felt %u2013 I%u2019m a viewer and I was cheated.

[acbas]

I am stunned by the comments I have read on this blog regarding the Edwards interview Katie Couric did on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Was my TV on the same station? Tough questions HAVE to be asked of a man campagining for the Presidency of the U.S., whose wife is battling cancer. Make no mistake, Katie took no pleasure in asking the tough, personal questions, given her personal background with family, but journalists must cover all the bases when interviewing Presidential candidates---otherwise bloggers would accuse her of being too "soft" on Edwards. You bloggers/viewers criticize her either way she interviews: either too soft, or too tough. Well, the reality is, she can not please everyone and she does the best job she possibly can each and every day. I, for one, think she is a professional and I keep my TV on Channel 2 now. My respect for her remains unwavered since the Edwards interview, which undoubtedly was a rough one for her, personally & professionally. Bravo Katie.

[musicmancbs]

Journalistic debate is one thing, but name-calling is quite another. Couric cannot win -- one moment, she is blamed for being "too soft;" then, when she asks hard questions in a hard news interview, she's called a "shrew," a "hag," biased (posts simultaneously claim she is a mouthpiece for Hillary Clinton and a mouthpiece for Rush Limbaugh), etc. Most of the comments -- "hag," "shrew," etc., are never comments that would be aimed at a male anchor -- full evidence that sexism is alive and well in this country.

Katie asked fair questions -- and I'm not sure how anyone can characterize her questions, nor the way she asked them, as "mean-spirited" or "sensational." The Edwards knew they were appearing on "60 Minutes," not "Oprah" or "Ellen."
Clearly, by agreeing to the interview in the first place, they expected such questions to be asked...and may have even wanted the opportunity to answer them.

The "some" used by Katie in the course of asking her questions probably refers to the range of opinions among the general public regarding the Edwards' decision. What was she supposed to do: say "'Joe Blow' wants to know why...." ? She was merely the conveyor of those quesitons because she had the opportunity to ask them and get answers.

[vastr-wcon]

It is typical of the graciousness of John Edwards that he would speak well of Couric, even though her outrageous, pathetic, disgusting interview showed that she is utterly and completely incompetent as a professional newsperson and should be relegated to just fluff interviews on morning shows.

[one2three1]

Why didn't Katie ask the Edwards about the governments policies on cancer, the lack of commitment of the Bush administration to spend significantly more money in finding treatments and cures and how the money being poured down the rat hole of Iraq could be used to find more options for treating cancers like Ms Edwards!

[jmbsheridan2]

Why did not Ms. Couric source the people who are asking the questions when she says "Some People Say" when beginning a question. It seems the some people are Limbaugh and Coulter. When you use "Some People Say" it sounds like it's actually Couric making the question up. I don't understand why she decided to use this "Fox News" tactic. It seems to damage her credibility unnecessarily.

[catz25]

Think about it a minute. It occured to me that Ms. Couric was only playing devil's advocate and beating the Faux news people to the punch. She knew that the Edwards were going to be asked these questions along the way and now that they have very candidly answered these tough and outrageous questions, (that believe me, the Faux people would have no qualms in asking them.) these questions no longer have any value or power to them. The Edwards are unbelievably gracious and honest people and our country would benefit greatly having them in the White House. We need integrity in our WHite House again so we can once again believe in our government. Vote John Edwards!

[schroeder181]

People aren't giving enough credit to Katie for conducting the interview. She, sadly, lost her husband and sister to cancer, so interviewing the Edwardses on such a painful subject must've been a personal hell for her. I can only imagine that she questioned herself over and over before asking the types of questions she knew she'd get flack for and would bring back her own awful memories. Plus, she probably checked in with the Edwardses prior to the interview to make sure they could steel themselves for tough talk. (Anyone who watches CBS Evening News knows that Katie totally has a heart - it's some good, heartfelt programming.)

If she didn't ask those questions and really downplayed the situation, the public would be criticizing her for being to soft. C'mon, admit it - we were all wondering how the Edwardses would handle this hurdle in the midst of a grueling presidential campaign.

So damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Anyway, Katie: let it roll off you like water. And to the Edwardses: my heart goes out to you!

- Susie

[milleniumgir]

This is really ironic considering when Couric's husband was dying of Cancer she did not stop her career at all. Th Edwards family are excellent people and did not deserve this repsponse from her. She is a single mother with daughters and others are with them more than she is! I am from North Carolina and know the Edwards family well and they are Highly repsected which is more than I can say for Couric! She should know that when people with Cancer are fighting it , stay strong and determined they do much better than those who stop their daily lives!

[mygramma]

Good post Greg. Thanks for the link to Dan Goldberg's fine article on the subject at Columbia Journalism Review. I agree with jcorbin1958. The smear Katie hate mongers need to get a life. No sense in recommending they take a second look or a journalism class -- they wouldn't understand anyway.