Second Lady, Second-Guessing
(AP)
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:
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:
And on the matter of the conduct of the Iraq war…
Given the above queries, it seems harsh, to put it mildly, to characterize the Sunday Morning interview as “fawning.”
You call that a tough question? I didn''t even watch the interview and I know how he answered.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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
-
by dtolman
October 10, 2007 5:30 PM PDT
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 12 Comments