Last November, I reviewed the “tapes” and read the transcripts of CBS Anchor Katie Couric’s interviews with the major parties’ 2008 nominees for Vice President of the United States.
While she tossed softballs to the Democrat, then-Senator Joe Biden, never following up on his contention that FDR went on TV when the stock market crashed in 1929*, she saved her toughest questions for the Republican nominee, then-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Even as Couric challenged the Republican, she failed to ask that accomplished woman about her record in office:
Not once did Couric manifest any knowledge of Palin’s record in Alaska, save the media scuttlebutt about her church and her views of social issue. But, that does not go to her record as a public official. Nothing about Palin’s work on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) where she took on a fellow Republican and ally of the Governor who had appointed her. Nothing about her work with a Democrat to bring down the corrrupt Republican Attorney General of her state. Nothing about the reforms she achieved as Governor by working across party lines.
Now, we may well have further evidence of Couric’s bias. Conservatives4Palin has video of the CBS Anchor mocking the then-Alaska Governor. Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey reminds us “that this is an edited clip; there is at least one cut in this video, and quite obviously we don’t have everything Couric said off air for context.” He asks a number of important questions and makes an important observation:
Did a CBS News employee shoot this while watching the satellite feed, or did a C-band satellite owner get a now-rare unencrypted feed from CBS at the time? Why did it take two years for this to come out? I assume these questions will eventually get answered, but for now, Couric’s snobbish reaction to Palin, the names of her children, and mooseburgers is pretty instructive
Instead of dismissing interest in this clip as the product of a slow news day (as the network has), CBS needs to come clean and search its archives for the entirety of this footage and release it to the public.
Don Surber finds the clip makes Ms. Couric look mighty petty:
I am not surprised by this clip and Miss Couric comes off as rather small. Apparently it is common for Couric to espouse such views as the soundman repeatedly turns off the sound in mid-snark.
Should the entirety of the footage be consistent with the clips we have seen, we will have further evidence that Ms. Couric was not an unbiased journalist covering the race, confirming conservative suspicions that she used the interview to undermine the credibility of Sarah Palin. More evidence of the MSM’s attempt to create a narrative in the 2008 campaign.
And a clear indication that she lacks the temperament to keep her job.
——-
*Was Couric even aware that in 1929, FDR was Governor of New York, not President of the United States and that Americans that year did not have televisions in their homes?
More proof from the Pravda state run media?
Do we need any more proof?
You have independent Fox News then you have all the rest…
Pravda state controlled media.
And the Pravda media is worth about a dollar a piece, hehe.
I’m going to (reluctantly) take the Couric side of this argument.
Look, I haven’t been in front of camera a lot, but, as a media student, and in my very brief time working in Hollywood, I can tell you that, when you become comfortable with your work environment, with your crew, and being in front of the camera, you say stupid stuff when your filming a teaser or clip like that. You know it’s going to be edited out, so they are relaxed and feel free to say what is on their minds. Yes, of course she’s biased, but who here isn’t?
In our media studies, we were taught early on that there is no such thing as an unbiased observer OR reporter. We all have baggage that affects the job we do, be it in media or any other career we work in.
Katie Couric biased? Duh! Couric and those she works with / for have not been in the news business for quite some time. It’s all about image making… or breaking.
Crap. I want to say more, but have to go to work again.
More proof Perky Katie Couric is a shallow shadow of a person; she’s so out of touch that she cannot see her elitism since she lives in a liberal echo chamber. Couric is no journalist–but more of a JournOlist.
Expect more viewers to fade away & radiate as Couric becomes smaller. She’s a total lightweight. She needs to go back to the morning shows or better yet, start a psychic network.
Uh… who cares about any of this stuff? Does any of that excuse her awkward answer about how Putin’s big head invading Alaskan air space means she has foreign policy experience? I don’t see how. Even if I granted that Palin’s resume is impressive, it is still overwhelmingly trumped by the complete stupidity that was on display in literally every one of her television appearances.
Do you know why you’ve never gotten an important job based off your resume alone? It’s because people want to make sure you’re not a moron, that you can talk to people, that you have some tangible quality that makes them want to hire you. Everybody looks good when they’ve distilled a lifetime of achievements onto a sheet of paper. There are thousands of politicians in this country that would have a similar roster of past successes to recommend them – but that’s not the sole decider of wether or not you’re the best person for a job. Can you think on your feet? Can you explain yourself clearly? Can you demonstrate an awareness of contemporary issues? Palin failed on all these fronts against the usual, timid questioning of modern media stars (if “What do you read?” throws you for a loop, you probably shouldn’t be dogcatcher, let alone VP to an extremely old man.)
The best you can hope for with Palin at this point is that she’s simply milking the conservative base in a get-rich-quick scheme. If she ends up running again as a candidate for the presidency, you guys are in a world of trouble. Please, continue the myth-making, continue the conspiracy theories, just keep pumping up that ego of hers. Liberals need all the help we can get, and Republicans shooting themselves in the face by boosting one of the worst political figures in generations will be much appreciated.
(Also, I’m actually very scared of Palin and am just fronting to hide my terror at her political genius and electoral viability. Take it to the bank!)
Um, Levi, it’s her record in office. We want to know what kind of executive she is.
I’m not saying it excuses anything, but it is striking that Katie Couric never once asked Sarah Palin about her record in office.
Couric probably does not have a single close friend who thinks Palin is not a Wasilla hillbilly. She probably does not have anyone around her who is pro-life. She likely sees man made global warming, man evolving from goo and the big bang birth of the universe as “settled science.”
I think the names of Palin’s kids are much like phonic concoctions many blacks dream up. I can not image Couric questioning where anyone dug up the name LaSwandakabongatodo. Her innate sense of political correctness is very sensitive to her agenda.
That said, Couric is no different than most others in the makeyoubelieve media. She carries the message of the environment she lives in and understands.
Levi, Couric hit Palin with a question that, in the context it was delivered, was actually one of “Can you read?”
What does the governor of Alaska read? Mooseburger recipes, lists of weird names for kids, how to fix your snowmobile with duct tape and clarinet reeds, wrecking the environment.
Does Alaska have newspapers? Can you buy books up there? Can an Alaskan last 15 minutes in a conversation with and Eastern elite?
What, Levi, does “What do you read?” mean? Show us how literate in Eastern elite you are.
Levi, why read the NYT or Washington Post? Both are fading away. How about good old Newsweek that just sold for $1? Tell, us Levi, what SHOULD you read if you are a Wassila hillbilly. Go on the record. I dare you.
Uh… who cares about any of this stuff?
Well, you said you did, Levi, back when you were blabbering about how we needed good experienced people in government.
Now you’re saying that experience, background, and previous performance are irrelevant and that the only thing we should care about is how you answer questions from an obviously-biased individual.
Which you used to scream was unfair as judgment when Obama made a fool out of himself answering questions because..wait for it….the questioner was biased.
This is why progressives can’t get hired at all. They simply haven’t figured out that hiring managers check resumes, interview questions, AND backgrounds, and wonder why Levi and his ilk claim, for example, military service when they were never in the military.
Does anyone believe that her counterparts at Fox don’t make similar comments about Democrats when they are not on the air? Newscasters are not robots; they come to their jobs with political orientations. This is a tempest in a teapot.
I did not see the interview where Biden apparently got some dates and facts wrong, but I’ll accept that it happened and that Couric did not follow up. Still, there is no way that he could have been reduced to the incoherent lightweight that Palin became in those interviews. I shall never understand the lionization of Palin by the right wing, and regardless of the success or failure of the Obama administration, shall always believe that her failure to be elected as vice president represents a meteor avoided.
Take any other potential female GOP vice presidential or presidential candidate, and tell me you think they would, in Palin’s place, have been similarly reduced. Elizabeth Dole? Kay Hutchison? Condi Rice?
Please.
Phil, if you have evidence of similar bias at Fox, please present. We have shown evidence of Katie Couric’s bias.
You have to read so much into that exchange to believe that this is the case. I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask of any politician, especially in the age of new media, and I would think that any politician worthy of running a bake sale would tee off on such a softball.
But Sarah’s answer; “All of them, any of them.” There probably isn’t a worse answer. How does something like that throw you for a loop? Even if Couric was being some spiteful bitch and really was accusing of her of being an illiterate hillbilly, that doesn’t negate the fact that Palin’s answer was absolutely pathetic.
The issue here isn’t what Sarah Palin does or doesn’t read, it’s her disastrous ability to speak extemporaneously and her utter unpreparedness for national office. This wasn’t Sarah’s only flub – she tried to pretend that Alaska’s proximity to Russia meant she had foreign policy experience. How about that rambling, babbling, incoherent answer about what should be done about the economy? I know you’re desperate here to portray Couric as the villain, but again, even if you assume the worst about Couric’s intentions, Sarah drowned herself in that interview. She immediately scurried over to the right wing media caccoon and Facebook fortress afterwards, otherwise she’d still be drowning herself (she often finds ways to do so anyway.)
Levi, you still don’t address or acknowledge the abundant examples of Couric’s bias. Palin may have flubbed the interview, but the point here is that Couric was not a dispassionate interviewer. And that is part of the story.
Phil Holmes:
1) If Condi Rice were president and screwing up as badly as Obama is, do you believe:
a) She would play the race card?
b) If the race card were played in her behalf, she would not shoot it down and accept full responsibility for her own failures?
Please show me the evidence that Palin became an incoherent lightweight in the interview.
Please show me how Biden’s propensity for gaffe’s raises him an inch above what the Make Believe Media turned Dan Quayle into. I invite you to review the rotten baloney sandwich Biden tried to sell concerning Natural Law while examining Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings. He sounded like Levi on steroids. When big egos blow smoke, they sure end up bare naked in public. Why not go down to Katie’s or Home Depot and chat it up with old Joe? He could blow sunshine up you rear portal and gird you with points on how to shovel smoke.
Levi is right… we’re much luckier to have Obama and Biden – the Churchill of our time; a modern-day FDR… nay, the Lincoln and M.L. King of the age!
Obama is a man of eloquence that make Reagan look like Alvin Greene.
I did not see the interview where Biden apparently got some dates and facts wrong, but I’ll accept that it happened and that Couric did not follow up.
Actually, we can show it to you.
So let’s see:
The stock market crash took place in 1929.
1) Television barely existed in 1929, and certainly wasn’t in wide enough use for anyone to be saying much of anything to anybody on it
2) Why would FDR be getting on the TV and following up on anything in 1929 when he was elected to his first term of office beginning in 1933?
Then again, Couric is a liberal, and demonstrably ignorant of American history. It is no surprise that the liberal base like Levi, who also has no clue when television actually came into wide use, when the stock market crashed, or when FDR was first elected, lapped this interview up as proof of how Biden was so much “better informed”.
Oh, and by the way, Levi: “I can see Russia from my house” was uttered by Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin — a fact of which the vast majority of the Obama Party electorate is completely and blissfully unaware, given that they believe that Saturday Night Live is a news show.
I find levi & co.’s consistent delusions of moral superiority with regard to conservatives in general (and Palin, specifically) increasingly bizarre and therefore indicative of a growing fear that perhaps getting everything you ever wanted may not always be so terrific.
In other words, the deeper the abyss into which the Democrat party stubbornly insists upon plunging itself, the more frantic and surreal become their howls of protestation at how the GOP refuses to go along for the ride. Unfounded cries of racism, laughable attempts at marginalizing vis-a-vis “the party of no” and “blame BUSH” that seem to be falling upon deaf ears, and an almost anal-retentive obsession with crafting the most mellifluous scorn in a pathetic attempt to bolster the illusion that somehow, they really WERE who they’ve been waiting for, and that all of this is gonna turn around any day now, and THEN we’ll be sorry!!!!!
Just sit back and watch; the more ridiculously incompetent the administration is revealed to be, the louder and more vociferous becomes the sophomoric tripe the left aims squarely at Palin. It’s clockwork.
The evidence is there, it’s as plain as the nose on your face. If you’ve watched those interviews, you know she’s a lightweight. There’s no way to explain her terrible answers otherwise. Would you care to try? How about her answer to the foreign policy experience question? You know the one, where she talked about Putin getting a big head and invading American airspace. That was incoherent to me – but perhaps it made perfect sense to you? By her logic, one has more or less foreign policy experience as a function of their distance to a foreign country. I don’t have as much foreign policy experience living in Washington D.C. as I did when I lived in Montana, because Canada was a few hundred miles closer. And hell, I was born in Germany on an Army base, so this basically qualifies me automatically for any kind of diplomatic position I would want, correct?
When you’re done, why don’t you try unpacking this golden nugget of wisdom:
“Like every American I’m speaking with, we are ill about this. We’re saying, ‘Hey, why bail out Fannie and Freddie and not me?’ But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those that are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help, um– It’s got to be all about job creation, too.”
Is that coherent?
I have no allegiance to Obama and the Democratic Party. I think they’re doing a terrible job and they deserve to lose, not for the same reasons that you do of course. You’re just not even close if you think I criticize Republicans to protect Obama.
Is that coherent?
Seems more coherent than “corpse-man.” but then that’s just me.
But one has to just adore levi for defending Couric’s trademark charming idiocy and certified bubble-headedness by saying, in effect, “but Palin was askin’ for it!”
What I think is irrelevant. What I see is an inherent intellectual dishonesty on the part of the so-called progressive movement, and an almost disturbing attraction to message boards on conservative websites that contain at least one of the following names: Palin, Bush or Cheney.
How are you reading that into what I’ve posted?
Look, if told 1 million people to write down 100 loaded questions, you’d have 100 million responses that were not “What do you read?” How is that an attempt at ‘gotcha journalism?’ How is it a quest to destroy somebody? As far as I’m aware, that kind of question has always been a fairly mundane conversational standard – BUT OOOOOOH! Don’t ask it of Sarah, because that’s just some elitist, snobby, character assassination attempt!
Of course, I haven’t seen even a piecemeal attempt to defend Palin’s answer, but that’s because it’s indefensible. The only option you have is to attack the questioner, who quite literally couldn’t have been asking a tamer question. I mean for the love of Christ, if I were an aspiring politician and didn’t read anything about the news at all, I’d at least be able to bullsh*t an answer to that question that was better than Sarah’s.
Dan, I am only asking whether you believe that the sort of light-hearted asides that Couric uttered off-camera were so egregious that their counterparts do not occur, every day, in hundreds of different television studios, including the ones run by Fox. I’m not talking about whether someone has a tape. I’m just saying that it’s impossible to believe that it does not happen all the time.
It’s like someone caught Couric belching before she went live, and everyone is running around saying, “Couric belches! We have proof! Couric belches!” And I say, “Well, hell, folks, I bet people at Fox belch all the time,” and now you want documentary evidence. Who needs documentary evidence to prove human nature?
As for the first part of Heliotrope’s comment, it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic, unless I am grossly misreading it, which I could be, it’s been a long day. Regarding the second part of Heliotrope’s comment, asking me for evidence that Palin became an incoherent lightweight (what IS it about blogs on the right side of the fence, everyone suddenly becomes a lawyer, demanding examples and evidence and footnotes), I simply invite you to go to youtube and put Palin in the search engine. Regarding Biden’s propensity to make gaffes, I have never seen the clip of Biden during the Thomas confirmation that you refer to, so I can’t speak to it. Is Biden a blow-hard? Yes. But, again, you are trying to distract us all from the real issue. The real issue is that Palin is an incoherent lightweight. What Biden is, or is not, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I don’t think Couric’s comments are scandalous, and I think all news people make such comments all of the time. In the end, Couric did not turn Palin into an incoherent lightweight.
Palin did that… all by herself.
🙂 You really haven’t gotten over the fact that Ms. Palin got caught out and helped hurt McCain’s campaign because she couldn’t even answer politically simple questions from the most lightweight reporter on network TV.
Phil, given what we have seen in the clip and the comparison of Couric’s interviews with BIden and Palin indicates that she held an animus against the Republican.
No, I’m not dismissing that Palin flubbed a couple questions in the interview. That’s not the point of the post. The point is whether Katie Couric has a bias. And we have increasing evidence that she does.
Now, I have no problem with a person with views covering the news, provided that individual acknowledge her bias. Katie Couric has not done so. If CBS wishes to give her on (given her sagging ratings, I see no reason why they should), then they should be honest with their audiences and present her as she is, warts and all.
All that said, as per this post, I do believe CBS should release the entire footage in question (if it exists). It is because of the absence of the full footage that I put a question mark in my title.
Okay, let me get this straight; because Katie Couric thinks that “Track” is a weird name for a human being, she therefore must harbor an animus against Sarah Palin?
That’s pathetic. Two weeks ago, you insisted that Fox News personalities disseminating racial smears against a black woman and the President on air didn’t prove a thing about Fox News’ bias, but Couric being surprised about Palin’s eldest son’s name conclusively proves hers? Am I supposed to take that seriously?
Tell me, were you surprised to hear that Palin named her son track? Every single person I know reacted in a similar fashion upon that news – it’s weird name, and talking about how weird a name it is doesn’t mean you hate a person or are out to destroy them.
Actually, in your original post, you characterize Couric’s questioning of Biden as ‘tossing softballs’ and explain that she saved her toughest questions for Palin – which is as clear a dismissal of Palin’s poor performance as anything. Your original post completely minimizes Palin’s responsibility and insists that Couric was out to destroy her. Yeah, right. Because when I think of tough questions a reporter asks a politician, I think of “What do you read?” and “What is your foreign policy experience?”
I’d like some specifics, if you would. Why don’t you and I both watch Couric’s interview of Palin, and you write down all the questions that you think are so terribly unfair? You’re being awfully vague in asserting Couric’s bias and are desperately grasping for straws if you think this clip proves anything.
That’s pathetic. Two weeks ago, you insisted that Fox News personalities disseminating racial smears against a black woman and the President on air didn’t prove a thing about Fox News’ bias, but Couric being surprised about Palin’s eldest son’s name conclusively proves hers? Am I supposed to take that seriously?
Yes, Levi, because you argued that your belief in Fox News’s “animus” made it so. Therefore, the proof that Katie Couric is biased against Palin should make it even more so.
You create animus without proof while denying animus with clear proof. You are a hypocrite and a bigot who cannot follow your own standards.
And also, as we will see by your refusal to respond to this, you are a coward.
Yes. But, again, you are trying to distract us all from the real issue. The real issue is that Palin is an incoherent lightweight. What Biden is, or is not, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Actually, Phil Holmes, the problem here is that you are trying to hide your obvious bias and bigotry in making that judgment.
I provided you clear examples of Biden’s idiocy. You refused to recognize or acknowledge them. You insist that they are irrelevant to Biden’s mental state or capability.
Now, the question: why do you refuse to state that Biden is a lightweight, when clearly he is if you apply the same standards as you did to Palin?
And the answer: Because you are incapable of applying the same standards and are deathly afraid of being called out on your obvious bigotry.
You are not intellectually consistent, Phil Holmes. Your political affiliation makes you a bigot.
Are you also going to criticize Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustern, et al, for their shrill anti-Obama bias. It is evident every time they go on the radio or TV.
Um, Lee, do any of those folks make any pretenses about being neutral observers of the news?
NDT, of course, I disagree. If you want to start a blog about Biden, you can ask Dan, and maybe he’ll launch an item about Biden, and whether he is or is not an incoherent lightweight. That was not the point of the original question. The original question had to do with whether Couric was scandalously biased for wondering where the hell “Track” came from as the name for a child (and as someone else has asked, who on earth would hear that name and think, yes, of course, what an expected and appropriate name for a child – the word for an oval around which runners run?). And, was Couric’s evident and earth-shattering bias the reason why Palin came out of her interviewers with her looking like a 12-year old who was caught napping in class and could not answer the teacher’s question.
My answer was that Couric’s so-called bias was actually nothing more than the very human nature of every news anchor, and that Palin came out looking unprepared and incoherent because she was unprepared and incoherent.
We’ll deal with Biden later. Let’s deal with Palin now.
You’re still not getting it, Phil Holmes.
You go on and on and on about Palin’s alleged idiocy — and yet worship as a genius a man who demonstrates an utter ignorance of history and reality.
In short, Phil Holmes, you are calling another person a moron when you and Perky Katie are going on and on about how President Roosevelt was on TV when the stock market crashed in 1929.
It’s sort of like a three-year-old claiming that a nuclear physicist is a dumb poopyhead.
Phil, but to get at Couric’s bias, you can’t deal with Palin without dealing with Biden. He too looked like an idiot, showing an incredible ignorance of American history and media. And the CBS Anchor didn’t follow up on his inaccurate response (which suggests she too might be ignorant.)
I won’t defend Palin’s response. Couric asked her a gotcha question which Palin clearly fumbled. But, she did not ask a similarly gotcha question of Biden. Couric asked Palin about regulations that her running mate supported, presuming it was an absence of such regulation which caused the financial meltdown.
If she had been even-handed, she would have asked Biden not what he would have done to forestall the crisis, but what Obama (his running mate) had done. And would have followed up had he not identified specific legislation that running mate proposed.
Now, Palin should have responded more aggressively, saying that since the issue was the (then-)current crisis, the issue was that particular legislation. When Couric followed up, Palin flubbed it (big time); she should have said, “You’re presuming it was deregulation that caused the crisis, when the real problem was out-of-control government-sponsored enterprises which John McCain tried to rein in — while Barack Obama raked in their campaign cash.”
That Palin gave a lousy response doesn’t excuse Couric from asking “gotcha” questions of one candidate while tossing softballs to her partisan opponent.
First of all, NDT, you lie like a rug, and it’s tiring. I’ve never seen anyone distort and invent things the way you do (“… you worship as a genius a man who…”). Nowhere in any of my posts did I say anything about liking or admiring Biden, nevermind worshipping him. It’s a red herring. It’s also irritating.
Dan, I see where you are going, but I don’t know that I would agree that Biden’s mistake puts him in the same league as Palin, with her breathtaking fumbling. Biden is gaffe-prone, like many extroverts I know he has a scary tendency to think outloud, without rehearsing, and it gets him in trouble, as it should. I was not happy when Obama named him as his running mate, though I guessed I knew where Obama was going with that decision (find someone with a long history in the congress who can help negotiate, strong-arm, etc.). I don’t think he is the smartest man we’ve ever elected vice president, but I would be far less worried about the country if he were to have to take over the presidential duties than I would be if Palin were to step in. When he takes the time to think, and is not blinded by the cameras (a prevalent disease among politicians), I think he is capable of insightful analysis (such as his work during the Iraq war when he suggested a tri-partite Iraqi state; one may not agree with his conclusions, but no one thought his work was shoddy or dangerous, and I defy anyone to suggest that Palin could do the same level of work; she’d be hard-pressed to find Iraq on a map).
Was there bias? Possibly. But, first, you refer to only one moment of incoherence on Palin’s part, and there were many. Second, if Biden and Palin were both to be interviewed on Fox News, I think you’d see the same difference in treatment (i.e., Fox would gun for Biden much more than they would gun for Palin). And to see Palin stand there and not be able to come up with one magazine that she reads regularly – that was astonishing. And her forced folksy-ness makes my stomach churn. She appeals to the worst “it must be simple, cuz I want it to be” tendencies in the American electorate.
Phil, you seem to be bending over backwards to excuse Biden for his gaffes. Some, to be sure, are slips of the tongue, but to make an error about American history as glaring at that one, well, that shows an incredible bone-headedness.
Basically, you’re saying that because he does it all the time, it’s not all that bad. Not only does he stay stupid things, but yes, his work has been shoddy. He has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy issue since his first election to the Senate in 1972. And has almost always marched in lockstep with his party on all major issues, showing no independence of thought.
Palin, by contrast, actually stood up to, fought and defeated corruption in her own party — before she was elected Governor. Yet, Couric didn’t ask her about that.
Why do you bring up FoxNews? You are making an assumption of how that network would treat the two candidates when I have provided evidence — see my original post last fall when I reviewed the tapes — of Couric’s different standard for different candidates.
Seems you’re more interested in savaging Sarah Palin, then in getting at the real bias of Katie Couric. As a favor to a classmate, do what that left-leaning anchor failed to do and review Sarah Palin’s record in office before reaching conclusions about her qualifications to serve.
The things I have to do for classmates… 🙂 OK.