Katie Couric edits RBG's actual opinions out of interview
Oct 14, 2021 11:47:53 GMT -5
robeiae likes this
Post by Optimus on Oct 14, 2021 11:47:53 GMT -5
Wasn't sure if this one was more "politics" or "current events," so robeiae please move it if it needs to be.
news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-admits-she-edited-155858178.html
So, for anyone who didn't see this, Katie Couric has admitted in her new book (I'm baffled that there's an audience for Katie Couric memoirs) that she edited out comments made by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an interview a few years ago when Couric asked her about the current National Anthem protests going on at sporting events:
So, RBG expressed the same dissatisfaction and irritation at National Anthem protests at sports events as a large majority of the country felt at the time, but because Couric either didn't like or agree with RBG's views, she cut them. Couric claims she did this to "protect her legacy" because they were "they were “unworthy of a crusader for equality” like Ginsburg.
This is egregiously unethical and a gross abuse of her Couric's position as a "journalist" (i.e., glorified morning show host who somehow failed upwards into CBS anchor position).
Knowing that RBG held views that aligned with a majority of the country would've been surprising to some, but I think reassuring to others and might've opened some eyes to the fact that many people tend to have nuanced and varied views on a lot of topics, rather than just blindly following what is viewed as their party's position (in 2016, when the interview took place, most polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans were against the protests. Recent polls show that just over 50% are now OK with it).
For me, this supports my long-standing view that Couric is and always has been a hack, but I think it will unfortunately also give fuel to the fires on the right that claim the media is horribly liberally biased (and, honestly, I'm starting to not be able to blame them for that view, given all the examples of it from NYT and CNN over the past 5 years).
What do y'all think?
news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-admits-she-edited-155858178.html
So, for anyone who didn't see this, Katie Couric has admitted in her new book (I'm baffled that there's an audience for Katie Couric memoirs) that she edited out comments made by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in an interview a few years ago when Couric asked her about the current National Anthem protests going on at sporting events:
In the interview — which was published by Yahoo News, where Couric was global news anchor at the time — she asked Ginsburg about then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and others who refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games. Replied Ginsburg: “I think it’s really dumb of them.”
“Would I arrest them for doing it? No,” Ginsburg elaborated. “I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
Couric then asked, “But when it comes to these football players, you may find their actions offensive, but what you’re saying is, it’s within their rights to exercise those actions?”
“Yes,” said Ginsburg. “If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventive. If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”
....Ginsburg declared the athletes were showing “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.”
“Would I arrest them for doing it? No,” Ginsburg elaborated. “I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
Couric then asked, “But when it comes to these football players, you may find their actions offensive, but what you’re saying is, it’s within their rights to exercise those actions?”
“Yes,” said Ginsburg. “If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventive. If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”
....Ginsburg declared the athletes were showing “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.”
So, RBG expressed the same dissatisfaction and irritation at National Anthem protests at sports events as a large majority of the country felt at the time, but because Couric either didn't like or agree with RBG's views, she cut them. Couric claims she did this to "protect her legacy" because they were "they were “unworthy of a crusader for equality” like Ginsburg.
This is egregiously unethical and a gross abuse of her Couric's position as a "journalist" (i.e., glorified morning show host who somehow failed upwards into CBS anchor position).
Knowing that RBG held views that aligned with a majority of the country would've been surprising to some, but I think reassuring to others and might've opened some eyes to the fact that many people tend to have nuanced and varied views on a lot of topics, rather than just blindly following what is viewed as their party's position (in 2016, when the interview took place, most polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans were against the protests. Recent polls show that just over 50% are now OK with it).
For me, this supports my long-standing view that Couric is and always has been a hack, but I think it will unfortunately also give fuel to the fires on the right that claim the media is horribly liberally biased (and, honestly, I'm starting to not be able to blame them for that view, given all the examples of it from NYT and CNN over the past 5 years).
What do y'all think?
