Okay -- it's finally happened.
I always knew that I didn't particularly LOVE Katie Couric. But I wasn't sure why. Maybe it was because she was too peppy. Maybe it was because she seemed to try too hard to be young, hip and trendy. Or maybe it was because during several interviews, I witnessed her turn on perfectly well-behaved sources, and "rip into them like a monkey on a cupcake."
But yesterday, I was reading the wire (an occupational hazzard of mine) and came across a story about an interview she did this week with Michael J. Fox. Fox was going on about stem cell research and how much he supports polititians who support this type of research, even though he "doesn't care about politics."
At the end of the interview, Katie apparently felt the need to inform the TV audience that her father has Parkinson's Disease and that she has made financial contributions to Fox's foundation for research.
Um. Hello? Hi! Welcome to Journalism 101. I shouldn't KNOW what causes you support or don't support! And quite frankly, if you are financially involved with your source, you should probably be the LAST person interviewing this particular person!!
Whatever happened to non-biased, uninvolved, third-party journalism? Couric has always bugged me because I know EXACTLY where she stands on way more issues than I care to count. There are some extremist journlists who think that voting should be off-limits to us, as a group. Now, while I certainly don't skew that rigid in my beliefs, I nonetheless must stand up for my belief that a viewer should have a HARD time figuring out where reporters and journlaists stand on the issues they present. Because, quite frankly, it's not about US. It's not about the writer or the reporter or the journalist. It's about the story and the different players in it. It's about presenting each side fairly, whether you like it or not.
End of rant. I'm sorry Katie, but I just don't think this is going to work out anymore. I've lost all respect for you. Please don't take it personally.
1 comment:
I see your point, but in my opinion, it is indeed possible to do a nonbiased story -- but if you spend a good portion of your time letting people know exactly where you stand on issues, how can readers/viewers etc. expect a nonbiased interview? To me, it shoots your credibility right out the window. After all, if you're interviewing someone for a cause you deeply belive in and financially support, will you push the limits and get all the facts, even if they are unfavorable? Will the really tough questions get asked? They might. But then again, they might not. :)
Post a Comment