CNN Somehow Makes Good Reporting Look Like Pandering

September 21, 2010 9:12 AM

'm a big fan of actual journalism where reporters aren't afraid to be assertive and press candidates for real answers to tough questions. I hate it when interviews turn into things where a reporter asks questions and the person being interviewed uses the silences between questions to spout off generic talking points and then the reporter moves on as if what he'd just heard had anything to do with what he'd asked. I agree with people like Jon Stewart that the lazy, I-don't-want-to-ruffle-any-feathers approach to journalism in the modern media is bullshit.

But I also think this CNN article is bullshit. In the video, Anderson Cooper and some random reporter talk about how ridiculous it is that Christine O'Donnell sidestepped a specific question about her use of campaign funds. If you watch the video, though, what happens is that the reporter asks her about it, and she says unequivocally that neither she nor her campaign have misused funds. She does not deny specific allegations, but makes it clear that, in her opinion, her campaign has been ethical. If I were her lawyer and my interest was solely in protecting her from criminal liability, that is a much more detailed response than I would have recommended.

But that's not the end of the story. The story is that Ms. O'Donnell "sidestepped" a later question from the reporter in which he asked her to address a specific allegation of misused funds. With her handlers shielding her, Ms. O'Donnell gave the typical "no comment." Then they talk about how ridiculous it is that she would do that and what an awful person she is.

Except that CNN--and every other news network--lets people get away with that kind of shit all the time. Not to mention that I think it's unfair to say that she sidestepped a question when she actually answered it, at least in the sense that her words were syntactically related to the words in the question. It may not have been the most satisfying--or truthful--answer, but she didn't sidestep it. She didn't sidestep the follow-up, either; she just refused to answer it. Again, if I were her attorney, that's exactly what I would have advised her to do and it's what any politician facing an investigation and potential criminal charges would do.

But in this instance--and not in many others that I'm aware of--CNN decided that her evasive responses were themselves the story. CNN should press the people they interview in all cases, but the fact that they're making such a big deal of it in only this case casts some doubt on their objectivity. More importantly, it makes them look like bullies--Ms. O'Donnell is the easiest politician to make fun of since Sarah Palin, and going after the low-hanging fruit is just pathetic.

3 Comments

MF formarly TheExpat said:

I have no respect for cable news networks as a general rule, so hearing your take on CNN's approach to O'Donnell sits just fine with me. New York Times' John Burns has been criticized for biased reporting on military actions in Iraq after Wikileaks found tons of shit someone like him might have uncovered were they to stop licking the Pentagon's boots for a few minutes and start asking questions. His reaction to the whole thing has been shite.

Here's a link.

November 6, 2010 8:06 AM

MF formarly TheExpat said:

Fuck yo' couch. It doesn't like my html tags. I'll find another spot for the link.

November 6, 2010 8:11 AM

bush88 said:

9. polo ralph lauren uk hot online for new season discount sale! A splendid collection of ralph lauren polo shirts are offered with the most trendy styles and sumptuous color choices available, great discount and exclusive online wholesale price offered! Orders of ralph lauren sale online enjoy 100% satisfaction of the products, considerate free shipping and professional customer services!

May 4, 2011 3:19 AM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

Captcha:

Type the characters you see in the picture above.