Katie Couric: The Sin of Spin
Late last week, Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post posted an article about Katie Couric’s recent interview with Barack Obama. Couric had done a recent interview with John McCain as well last week. Between the two interviews, I noticed a common thread between the two. First though, here’s the transcript of the interview that Linkins posted:
COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?”
COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, “Why?” OBAMA: Well … because … what I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.COURIC: But didn’t the surge … help do that?
OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we’re detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists’ actions are being plotted. …
COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?
OBAMA: No, no … of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn’t anticipated happening.
All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that’s one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things … are critically important. What I’m saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.
COURIC: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?
OBAMA: Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.
COURIC: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.
OBAMA: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision– to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.
COURIC: And I really don’t mean to belabor this, Senator, because I’m really, I’m trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq … would exist today without the surge?
OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there’s no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I’ve said that previously. What that doesn’t change is that we’ve got to have a different strategic approach if we’re going to make America as safe as possible.
Now watch what Couric and CBS News broadcasted:
Notice anything out of whack? They cut out the part where she asked the same question three times in a row. Not only did they cut up the interview, they did it to create a given context. I’m with Linkins on this one; it’s clear that Couric was attempting to lead Obama to a specific, defined outcome of her own choosing. This is the kind of reporting I can do without. Just like the interview with McCain, Couric and her team at CBS News seem fit to distort the news to their own context. That, my friends, is not good reporting.
Look, I don’t care who or what the news is about. It’s the responsibility of the reporter to report the news in an unbiased, unfiltered fashion. All I ask is that a reporter report the news and let me decide what I think about it. Otherwise the news becomes their news.
Couric and CBS News has given us their news with these interviews. It’s not their job to tell me what to think. It’s their job to tell me the facts and then follow it up with an opinion if they so choose. However, slick editing to create a context is not creating an opinion, rather its the creation of a lie. I know because I majored in video production. I know exactly how powerful good video editing can be.
Had Couric and CBS News simply shown the interviews as-is with no fancy cuts then I probably have more respect for them. Since they didn’t, I have no respect for Couric or CBS News. If the cuts were made to hide the fact the Couric didn’t ask good questions or wasn’t able to interview her subject properly then she should have asked better questions and conducted herself in a better fashion. But making cuts to favor a given opinion? Come on, Couric! If you can’t do better than that then put in your resignation!
