Jueves pasado, mediodía. John Edwards anuncia junto a su esposa Elizabeth que el cáncer de ella ha reaparecido y expandido; que no es curable pero tratable. Y que él {MI candidato, tan centrado y buenmozo y con ese acento sureño que aparece en el momento preciso} seguirá en carrera presidencial pero, que estará adonde ella lo necesite en caso de que estén separados. Sniff. Que primarias ni que nada, él merecía en ese minuto el premio al marido del año. Pero nadie consideró esa posibilidad y tenemos al país dividido entre los que consideran ridículo no bajarse y los que apoyan eso que la vida continúa "no matter what." Y el colmo de los colmos: Katie Couric en la sopa. Los entrevistó el domingo en CBS y obviamente ya la han descuerado {a ella no le ha ido nada de bien con su decisión de cambiarse de matinal a mujer ancla de noticias}. Y nada, encontré interesante esata discusión aleurzua para que despejes tu mente de buses oruga, ministros cambiados y Choles diciendo "me dio pena."
Couric Criticized for Edwards Interview by Katie Phillips.
CBS News has been slammed today over Katie Couric’s interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards on “60 Minutes,” the criticisms whipping around the blogosphere and permeating all quarters, including Mr. Edwards’s discussion about global warming in California today and at his wife’s appearance at the City Club forum in Cleveland.
Here’s Mr. Edwards’s statement, released tonight:
”The Edwardses appreciated the opportunity 60 Minutes afforded them to respond to tough questions which have been raised in response to last week’s diagnosis that Mrs. Edwards’ cancer had returned. Mrs. Edwards also called Ms. Couric today to thank her for the interview and to say that she and Senator Edwards thought the interview was both thorough and fair.”
During a roundtable today in San Francisco to discuss his plan to halt global warming, Senator Edwards was asked about the matter and said: “My reaction was that Katie Couric asked questions that the American people are asking themselves, and I think they were completely legitimate questions.
And I think the American people deserve answers from me and from Elizabeth to those questions. I mean, I’m asking America to support me and vote for me as their next president, and I think part of the evaluation of a candidate for president is a personal evaluation of the character and integrity and honesty of a candidate. So, no, I thought the questions were fair. Tough. I thought they were tough, but they were fair.”
The lashings throughout the day stem from accusations that Ms. Couric grilled the couple, (Matt Drudge’s headline this morning), to questions about her usage of the phrase, “some say,’’ in posing questions to them, to her decision to leave her own personal losses to cancer – her husband of colon cancer in 1998 and her sister of pancreatic cancer in 2001 – out of the interview. (At least what was broadcast.)
At HuffingtonPost.com, a collection of bloggers’s posts were published: Taylor Marsh, David Sirota and Nora Ephron chimed in, to blast Ms. Couric.
Ms. Marsh:
I’m amazed that this is the best CBS could do with the biggest interview opportunity of the week. Over and over and over and OVER again, you asked variations on the “you know you’re dying so what’s the point?” theme.
How about a segue into health care? No.
Mr. Sirota:
She spent most of her interview with the Edwardses behaving like a prosecutor, cross-examining them about why they are going forward with the presidential campaign. And when I say “interrogate” I mean interrogate. This was no ordinary interview - this was a televised guilt trip. She stated as fact to John Edwards that he is supposedly “putting your work first, and your family second.” She also pulled the “some say” technique, claiming that an unnamed “some” say that in making this decision, Edwards is displaying “a case of insatiable ambition.”
I wonder how Katie Couric would have reacted back in 1997 if people started interrogating her about why she was working during her husband’s tragic illness? I’m guessing she wouldn’t have reacted too kindly to it (which she shouldn’t have - she would have every right to be pissed off). That’s why I couldn’t believe she of all people insisted on this line of interrogation. I was, frankly, amazed that the Edwardses didn’t get up and walk out on the third or fourth question along these lines.
Couric at one point stated that “politics is a cynical business” and the Edwardses laughed as if to say “duh.” It is a cynical business - but it is cynical because people like Katie Couric are so utterly caustic and so utterly devoted to “the scoop” that they insist on exploiting even the most personal of personal issues, regardless of their own personal experiences.
Ms. Ephron:
Last night on 60 Minutes, Katie Couric quoted John Edwards’ remark earlier in the week — that he was in the race “for the duration,” and asked him, “How can you say that, Senator Edwards, with such certainty? If, God forbid, Elizabeth doesn’t respond to whatever treatment is recommended, if her health deteriorates, would you really say that?”
Thank you, Katie. Thank you for asking that question. The world could not have survived had you not asked it. Of course, “Some people” were undoubtedly thinking it. And it would have been a tragedy not to have given voice to that thought, wouldn’t it? Or would it?
Is Ms. Couric’s situation similar? Was she running for the presidency when her husband was stricken?
There’s no question that, as many have repeated from the old Robin Morgan title, the personal is political. Caucus readers have written in hundreds and hundreds of e-mails and comments, telling of their own cancer tales, of their own losses, of their own survivals, and some - yes using the word - some, have questioned why the Edwards family would continue Mr. Edwards’s quest for the presidency given the news that Mrs. Edwards’s cancer has metastasized to her bones. Should he go or should he stay? Some do ask. And will his prospective donors, who are key to his viability as a candidate, worry the same?
On her own blog, Ms. Couric late this afternoon cited a New York Times article on Saturday that gave her pause:
I was also surprised to read an article in the New York Times about how people viewed this story through their own personal prisms – some in a negative way. I really used some of those voices as a framework for my questions. I knew that everyone was reacting differently to this, and I wanted the Edwards to have a chance to elaborate and respond to issues people were raising. When the interview was over, the biggest compliment came from Senator Edwards, who thanked me and said: “You asked all the questions that were out there.” I think they appreciated having an opportunity to respond.
CBS’s “Public Eye” blog explained the questioning this way:
Some viewers may have felt it unseemly to talk about the political implications of a health crisis like the one the Edwards family is now going through. But it is also necessary in light of the decision by the couple to stay in the presidential race. That decision prompts voters to consider all sorts of important questions, not least of which is whether John Edwards could run the country effectively while also dealing with his wife’s illness.
Commenter “bb2881″ wrote this in response: “Katie-stop using the Fox News tactic of ’some people say’ If you’re going to ask ‘tough’ questions, be tough enough and have the guts to quote whoever is saying it.” A number of commenters, expressing similar views, argued that Couric should have sourced the criticisms to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh.
The problem with this argument is that it’s not just Limbaugh and his ilk who are raising many of these questions. To suggest that they are only coming from partisan commentators misrepresents the nature of the national conversation.
Jane Gross, who covered Mrs. Edwards’s speech today in Cleveland, reported that many women in the audience, many of whom are cancer survivors, criticized the interview, too. She said Mrs. Edwards didn’t respond directly to questions about the questions Ms. Couric posed.
Of media criticism, Columbia Journalism Review took a stab today at the onslaught of attacks on Ms. Couric and asked this:
Why is Couric taking so much heat? Are people threatened by a woman? Is it because she has been typecast as a soft news person from her years on Today? Is she too liberal? Too fluffy?
Or is it simply more fun to hate?
