Ethics Dunce: PBS Host Christiane Amanpour, Or “Why The Hell Is The Government Funding A Journalist Who Hasn’t Figured Out The First Amendment Yet?”

PBS journalist Christiane Amanpour, not to bias you against her or anything but merely to remind you who this pompous blight on American journalism is, once defended biased journalism, saying,

“There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.”

——Christiane Amanpour in 1996, responding to critics who called her reporting on the Bosnian War biased.

Then there was this Amanpour quote, after Benjamin Netanyahu correctly objected to the Obama Administration’s deal with Iran…

“It was a very dark Strangelovian speech painting the picture of a dystopian world, raising the spectre of a genocidal nation, a genocidal regime spraying nuclear weapons to annihilate the whole world and the whole region. Now, obviously many people are very concerned about Iran and there is a deep lack of trust, but surely the same was said of the Soviet Union all those years ago.”

—-CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour, commenting on Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial address to Congress.

Boy, when she’s right, she’s right. Why would the leader of Isreal ever raise the specter of genocide? And imaging—not trusting Russia!

To sum up what such quotes signify, she’s a pompous, biased hack, one of the worst, who is inexplicably extolled, perhaps because she has a cool European accent.

Now comes her latest display: on her PBS show, “Amanpour Amanpouring, “or something like that, she asked guest James Comey (Any enemy of the President is Christiane’s friend),

“Of course, ‘Lock her up’ was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you, in retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, I mean, the people in charge of law and order – had shut down that language? That it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it’s kind of hate speech? Should that have been allowed?”

Should that speech that dares to impugn Amanpour’s darling Hillary Clinton have been allowed? Why don’t you say what you really think, you censorious crypto-totalitarian: Why didn’t Obama just sent in a S.W.A.T. team and arrest Trump?

This woman has been getting star journalist billing in this country for decades, and she literally doesn’t comprehend the First Amendment! Why should a single penny of tax-payer funds be expended to pay the salary of someone whose entire orientation is not American but European, who does not accept nor understand our values and culture, and who routinely misinforms her left-leaning audiences, tilting them away from democracy with poison like “Why didn’t the FBI just use its police power muzzle anyone saying mean things about Hillary Clinton?”

To his credit, and there isn’t much to his credit, but this is, Comey reminded her—if she ever knew—what “freedom of speech” is, saying, more nicely than I would have,

“That’s not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is, people can say what they want, even if it’s misleading and it’s demagoguery. The people who should have shut it down were Republicans who understand the rule of law and the values that they claim to stand for. Shame on them, but it wasn’t a role for government to play.”

If only he had ended with “you idiot,” that answer would be perfect. She should be fired, and no one should contribute to PBS nor watch what they call “news” there until or unless she is.

 

22 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: PBS Host Christiane Amanpour, Or “Why The Hell Is The Government Funding A Journalist Who Hasn’t Figured Out The First Amendment Yet?”

  1. As someone who can view PBS via their app on Apple TV, it is angering and nauseating at the absolute shite that passes for news and programming. Literally 75% of PBS program choices are rife with propaganda.

    Even period pieces cannot stop themselves from attacking traditional values and engaging in full on political correctness, even when set hundreds of years ago. The contemporary arts programs, aside from simple recorded performances, are all from the same left biased perspective.

    Ms. Amanpour is just an individual example of a far deeper and disturbing publicly funded problem. If half the country voted for the bad orange man, shouldn’t their values be represented here? Amanpour and her fellow travelers would say, no, ignorance and deplorability must be fixed by her ilk at every opportunity.

    Disgusting.

    • Yeah, I used to love period shows on Masterpiece, but the subtext on Downton Abby drove me nuts until I identified the modern spin being slapped in. Antiques Roadshow pretty much avoids that though. And once in a while, they have something good as a documentary too.

  2. But she is an aristocrat, let’s translate to ‘American’.

    PBS ‘Elite Speak’: “Of course, ‘Lock her up’ was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you, in retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, I mean, the people in charge of law and order – had shut down that language? That it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it’s kind of hate speech? Should that have been allowed?”

    American Translation: “The horror!, They expect laws to apply to everyone, not just the commoners! Laws don’t apply to us! Why didn’t you send in the troops to get rid of such peasants? Talk like that could lead to a revolt.”

    • I read a comment about the SCOTUS decision that argued that capital punishment was “cruel and unusual” because Europe rejects it. American values and traditions ARE unusual in the world–and much of the time, better. European chauvinism belongs an ocean away.

      • She’s an Iranian, raised in Tehran and then London once her family had to flee the Islamic Revolution. She has that snotty BBC voice and she was kind of hot back before electricity. I think she also became acquainted with some then young Kennedys when she was in college with them in Rhode Island. She was originally foisted upon us by CNN during the first Iraq war as a side kick of that insufferable Iraqi apologist Peter Arnett. I had no idea she was working for NPR, which should be completely defunded. Let the DNC or George Soros pay for NPR.

  3. Here is the full exchange:

    AMANPOUR: Of course, “Lock her up” was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign. Do you, in retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, I mean, the people in charge of law and order – had shut down that language? That it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it’s kind of hate speech? Should that have been allowed?

    COMEY: That’s not a role for government to play. The beauty of this country is, people can say what they want, even if it’s misleading and it’s demagoguery. The people who should have shut it down were Republicans who understand the rule of law and the values that they claim to stand for. Shame on them, but it wasn’t a role for government to play.

    Is Comey saying that Republicans should have controlled their Trump supporters? Is Comey saying that Republicans should have reined in Trump and the Trump supporters because that chant, as obnoxious as it was, somehow violated the rule of law? What is Comey actually saying? He is betraying his authoritarian leanings as much as Amanpour is betraying her censorious leanings.

    jvb

      • I agree, Jack, but Comey was the FBI Director, supposedly the highest investigative head in the nation. He went into the Clinton email leak investigation to shield Clinton and found himself in a pickle when Huma’s husband ended up with billion bytes of classified intelligence on his laptop, so he had to do something. He couldn’t ignore it, lest he be accused of dereliction of duty; and he couldn’t go full-guns blazing investigating the new evidence, lest he be accused on throwing the election to Trump. So, he did a Jesse Jackson, 3-day retreat to demonstrate that he looked at it but didn’t find new stuff to pin on her so people should just vote for her anyway. He ended up with egg in his hair.

        As for Amanpour, she routinely flaunts her liberal/Leftist credentials to anyone who is inclined to listen. I don’t expect her to be anything other than biased, unprofessional, and condescending.

        PBS lost all objectivity decades ago so it does not surprise me that they would have someone like Amanpour on the payroll. Their progressive bona fides are beyond question – I guess, someone in the way-back times decided “public broadcasting” simply meant using taxpayer dollars to promote leftist propaganda and ideology. I rarely watch PBS shows other than Austin City Limits and an occasional British program (“Black Adder” or some such silliness).

        jvb

        • The point is, there is no reason to ever believe or trust Comey, so his statements should do no harm. He’s a liar, and was an incompetent FBI director. Now he’s a self-promoting agent of the resistance abusing his past position for credibility and authority he doesn’t deserve. I would rather watch Pauly Shore interview a pile of sheep dung than endure Amanpour interviewing Comey.

    • John, Comey’s actually saying the GOP should have not allowed Trump to run and sent Marco Rubio or someone else off to slaughter so Hillary would have been coronated and he’d be the head of the FBI. Presto Chango!

  4. This woman has been getting star journalist billing in this country for decades, and she literally doesn’t comprehend [emphasis added] the First Amendment! Why should a single penny of tax-payer funds be expended to pay the salary of someone whose entire orientation is not American but European, who does not accept nor understand [emphasis added] our values and culture, and who routinely misinforms her left-leaning audiences, tilting them away from democracy with poison like “Why didn’t the FBI just use its police power muzzle anyone saying mean things about Hillary Clinton?”

    In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, “Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand”. You may be jumping to a conclusion of the Socrates sort, on the back of the idea that nobody would knowingly choose that.

    Oh, and taking your question seriously, one moderately good reason is so that you know what perspectives are out there, just as you should look at internet resources that don’t simply back your existing views.

    • Huh?

      Are you suggestion she knew the right answer to her question and was quizzing Comey for the benefit of 6-year-olds in then audience? I see no reason to conclude that. She asked “why not?” regarding official squashing of protected speech. Ergo she does not understand..and as a journalist who covers national affairs, that’s intolerable.

      • No, I am outright telling you that someone who doesn’t care and is using talking points might still understand perfectly well. You simply have no evidence that she does not understand free speech issues and concepts, because disagreeing with them is not evidence that she is missing anything. Neither is her not answering her own facile talking points; your “ergo” is incorrect. You, like Socrates, suppose that knowing the good is enough as nobody would knowingly avoid the good. Non sequitur.

        I could turn your own argument on you: if it were true, you would be bound to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, what with your ethicist practice, so you would have to know that people are capable of that – and that makes your position untenable. You can only think what you do if people can and do trip up in a range of ways – so it is not inherently impossible for C.A. to err in ethics rather than in understanding, too.

        • Let me be clear and not too obnoxious since I haven’t had a cup of coffee yet. She’s a professional journalist, and thus cannot “disagree” with facts central to her job, and the content and meaning of the First Amendment are central, and are facts, not anything less substantial. If a judge or police officer asks, “Why didn’t you just shoot and rob some rich guy if you needed money?”, that “professional” is a fraud. Occam’s Razor applies: the conclusion that it is a mad wag injecting satire into his professional conduct is equivalent of the zebra tracks.

          • You are perfectly clear, but you are not correct (see Einstein’s “make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler”). Perhaps I can clarify what is at issue. Let me start with something we don’t know, before providing supporting detail: whether or not C.A. actually understands free speech issues and why others care about those. Either she does, and perversely pursues another agenda, or she is genuinely, perhaps invincibly, ignorant.

            On to your more recent remarks:-

            She’s a professional journalist, and thus cannot “disagree” with facts central to her job, and the content and meaning of the First Amendment are central, and are facts, not anything less substantial.

            That is not what I was telling you about. I was telling you about her attitude and agenda towards things like that. She may well be misbehaving, in full knowledge of the factual things out there. That remark has no more effect in this vale of tears, this fallen world, this cislunar sphere than claiming that theft is impossible because it is banned by both men and measures.

            If a judge or police officer asks, “Why didn’t you just shoot and rob some rich guy if you needed money?”, that “professional” is a fraud.

            Yes, and? Think it through: being a fraud does not require ignorance, incompetence of the sort involved in not understanding; if anything, understanding the fraud helps the fraudster.

            Occam’s Razor applies: the conclusion that it is a mad wag injecting satire into his professional conduct is equivalent of the zebra tracks.

            Yes – so don’t go there, as it would be setting up a straw man. Not nowise, not nohow, did I ever even suggest that. Rather, “I [was] outright telling you that someone who doesn’t care and is using talking points might still understand perfectly well”. Where did you pull any idea of satire out of that?

            We could quite easily have here a person who would tear down all the laws to get at the Devil, knowing quite well that laws men made, men can change (in this matter, even constitutions are philosophically no more than law). She may not know the consequences, which would make her incompetent – but then again, she might. To continue the example drawn from A Man For All Seasons , in this she may be playing the part of Thomas Cromwell, not of Roper or the Duke of Norfolk. You seem to find the possible existence of a Thomas Cromwell incredible, yet that is all I was asserting: the untested possibility, that we cannot rule out given what little we actually know.

  5. There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice.

    Correct. And what is evil, or bad, about being an accomplice in free speech? Was Switzerland therefore a German accomplice in World War II? I realize the implementation of their neutrality was imperfect, to say the least, but after all, don’t intentions matter most?

    This is a restatement of one of the oldest ethics-free statements in the world, “You are either with us, or against us.” Not only does she take a side, she implies not doing so is evil.

    It was a very dark Strangelovian speech painting the picture of a dystopian world, raising the spectre of a genocidal nation, a genocidal regime spraying nuclear weapons to annihilate the whole world and the whole region.

    Anyone who uses the words “Strangelovian” and “dystopian” in the same sentence should be banned from journalism. Just my opinion about that.

    As to her views on free speech, she was raised in the free-speech bastion of Iran until she was 11, then in English private boarding schools where the First Amendment to the US Constitution was no doubt taught with gusto, and finally at the University of Rhode Island, another First Amendment absolutist redoubt.

    Frankly, with that background, it’s not hard at all to understand why her views on free speech are in discord with those of the Founders of the United States. She got them honestly, and they appear to be sincerely held.

    So my response would’ve been more in sorrow than in anger.

  6. My idea is that the Media Systems (here speaking of the US) are hopelessly corrupt because they are hopelessly enmeshed with economic and political interests. There is an interesting article (with a video) about Rupert Murdoch and the Fox network in the Times today.

    It seem to me that bringing up Murdoch and Fox is a way to counter-punch against the whole idea of ‘Soros’. But what this really only means — all of it — is that incredibly vast corporate entities, and vast capital interests, create the news distribution systems.

    It is all ludicrous . . . [early 17th century (in the sense ‘sportive, intended as a jest’): from Latin ludicrus (probably from ludicrum ‘stage play’) + -ous.]

    I do not think one can get clear about what goes on within these systems by listening, or believing, what they tell and what they offer. It is ‘highly improbable’ that one will achieve good understanding.

    Therefore, one has to develop a position from outside — a critical position obviously — from which to see and understand and explain.

    Oh, let me offer this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.