Advance copy from Katie Couric’s soon-to-be-released memoir “Going There” reveals her to be an unethical human being: manipulative, vindictive, mean and disloyal. A section of the book, however, that she doubtless thinks will endear her to readers and her colleagues really shows how unethical the “profession’ of being a mainstream news media has become.
Couric writes that she edited out part of the 2016 interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in which the liberal icon said that football players who were kneeling during the National Anthem were showing “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life … which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from….And that’s why education is important.” Couric says that she wanted to protect Ginsburg, then 83, who was “elderly and probably didn’t fully understand the question.”
In the portion of the interview that did air, Ginsburg said: “I think it is really dumb of them. Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it is dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it is a terrible thing to do. But I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act. But it is dangerous to arrest people for conduct that doesn’t jeopardize the health or well-being of other people. It is a symbol they are engaged in….If they want to be stupid, there is no law that should prevent that. If they want to be arrogant, there is no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”
A day after the interview, the Supreme Court’s public affairs office said Ginsburg had “misspoken” and asked Couric to remove her comments on kneeling from the story. Ginsburg released a statement after the interview in which she said her comments were “inappropriately dismissive and harsh,” and she commented even though she was “barely aware of the incident or its purpose…I should have declined to respond,” Ginsburg said.
Let me get this straight, now, to be fair to Couric. Ginsburg saying that “taking a knee” was dumb—as it was and is—made it to the air. Her comments that suggested that she also disagreed with the sentiment and reasoning behind the protest, however. were removed by Couric to “protect” the Justice. From what? Why, from agreeing with, well, me for example. Lots of other thoughtful people who regarded kneeling during the anthem at football games to imply that complex fact patterns leading to black citizens being shot be police indicated national racism also was misguided and wrong…apparently Couric felt it would harm Ginsburg’s status with Woke Nation to hear such a view issuing from her. Worst of all, that analysis echoed—Donald Trump!
Can’t have THAT! The old girl must have been having a senior moment, so Katie had to step in for the rescue. Wait—if a SCOTUS justice is showing signs of diminished comprehension, shouldn’t journalists want to let the public know that? Don’t they have a right to know? Isn’t that the journalist’s duty?
Nah, a journalist’s duty, as the majority of mainstream reporters see it in 2021, is to protect their ideological allies, manipulate what the public gets to read and hear to ensure approval of progressive leaders, opinion-makers and policies, and to do everything possible to undermine public figures of whom the journalists disapprove!
Now here is where bias makes journalist like Couric stupid. The section she edited out “to protect” Ginsburg made more sense and reflected better on her acuity than the section Couric included. Who ever suggested that Colin Kaepernick and his fellow grandstanding fools should be arrested? Nobody. Who compared it to flag-burning, except for First Amendment dummies (“And that’s why education is important!”)?
As she said in the statement later, obviously Ginsburg didn’t understand the question, because she fell into the trap of the legally ignorant defenders of the NFL kneelers, who argued that they had a right to demonstrate during games, on the field, in their work place. They don’t. They never did. It’s not a free speech issue at all. Ginsberg compared the gesture to flag-burning, which proves she was confused. Couric, however, who also didn’t understand the issue (but isn’t a legal scholar who should have) didn’t “protect” Ginsburg at all. But since she agreed with the Justice’s misplaced defense of the protest, and because she assumed that other knee-jerk progressives would agree as well, that section made the cut. No wonder the PR office at the Court wanted it out.
To sum up:
- Couric redacted the interview to keep relevant information from the public eacause she wanted to “protect” a progressive icon.
- Would she have taken such measures to protest a conservative justice? Do I really have to ask?
- Couric, being an ignorant hack made stupid by bias, left in the comments that showed Ginsburg to be confused and out of touch with current controversies, a response that suggested that she was showing her age. She left out the comments that many Americans agree with because Couric didn’t agree with them, and because they would support criticism of the Kaepernickers.
- Couric tells this story to make her seem like a loyal woke journalist upholding the heroes of the left, and has no clue that it proves that she deliberately withheld information from her viewers in a manner that is antithetical to ethics journalism.
- And in telling the story, Couric manages to suggest that Ginsberg was suffering from diminished comprehension and judgment due to advanced age.
In fact she was, but you could dig up Ruth tomorrow and she’d still be sharper than Couric.