When you have outwardly racist liberal media scum like Jake Tapper and Dokoupil on CNN and CBS gutlessly doing the bidding of Apartheid Israel and their continued attacks on journalism, it seems odd that a Fox News journalist, of all people, has made a principled statement and come out in defence of the profession.
Media Thread
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
When you have outwardly racist liberal media scum like Jake Tapper and Dokoupil on CNN and CBS gutlessly doing the bidding of Apartheid Israel and their continued attacks on journalism, it seems odd that a Fox News journalist, of all people, has made a principled statement and come out in defence of the profession.
Watched this and in no way shape or form should it be controversial. It's exactly the kind of discussion we need more of.
And I mean that agnostic of the topic. That's the point. Coates is welcome to have his view, and being it on TV, but must be prepared that not everyone will share it.
The scariest fact of this whole incident is that CBS feels like it needs to apologize to absolutely anyone for this.
It screams to me of the kids at universities getting triggered in their young brains by difficult thoughts and getting teachers banned. They've grown up a bit and now write to CBS.
Any academic who believes a view should want it challenged, should seek that out as its the only way to make better sense of the world.
Have you read the book, so you know whether it warranted being called “extremist” by someone with a clear pro-Israel bias?
My point is that any author should welcome the challenge. If I'm choosing to write a book with a viewpoint on one of the most divisive topics in human history, than I would partly do it for the debate. And for the record, I've nothing against Coates - I've heard the book is great and he's done absolutely nothing wrong, nor has he complained as far as I know. This is about the reaction of the 'public'.
What riles me is that 'people' are able to moan about something as banal as this to CBS and the CEO is siding with them. No, if you're triggered by this then it's your problem, if you can't handle this and think this is too 'tough' than go watch something else. I want the CEO of CBS to salute tough questions and promise to do more of them.
If we keep going down this road we're just doomed to fail. One of the reasons I'm active on this forum and others is because there are so many posters that passionately post things I hugely disagree with. And generally (with one clear exception at the moment) this forum is a place where one can share their own views and debate.
I don't want to live in a world where something I say in a discussion about a controversial topic in a debate 'triggers' someone - and instead of them coming to me and discussing it, they call my boss and file an HR complaint.
I think you are reading way too much into this in terms of people complaining about it being too tough to watch etc.
It was bad journalism, so it became a story and CBS recognized it and commented on it. Seems like a good thing that media companies also feel some accountability.
Why do you think it was bad journalism?
The interviewer was quite hostile and clearly let his own personal biases shine through way too hard. Already at that point you've reached bad journalism, in my view. Now, I haven't read the book, but from what I understand Coates is critical of the modern-day Apartheid taking place in Israel and the Wests complicity of it, based on a recent visit there. Before even finishing his question the interviewer says "the content would not be out place in the backpack of an extremist", "why not detail the little Israeli kids blown to bits", and the eternal classic "is it because you simply don't believe Israel has a right to exist?". It was not an attempt to better understand the book or Coates' experience - it was an attack on it. You can challenge the material without being a child. It was patently absurd. He stops just short of calling him an antisemite.
If you think this is a case of blue-haired college snowflakes forcing CBS into a statement, then we simply see things differently.
Also, (and I admit this is kind of a smaller point), it was a fecking morning show. Can you imagine that presenter going in that hard on any other guest there to promote their new project? I can't.
Honestly, I think if more journalists asked questions that way on more topics we'd be better as a society. In both directions. If Coates feels like he has been attacked, then he can respond there - he has after all chosen to publish on this topic - which obviously is incredibly emotive. He can 'attack' back. It's probably worth noting CBS's chief legal council said she had no problem with the interview and that the host was entitled to ask hard questions - interestingly splitting from the CEO.
Now, it should be civil, never personal and based around debate norms, but I have no problem with journalists having strong views. I love roundtable discussions with people who vehmenently disagree with each other.
In this particular case, I think the subject matter is the story and the reason it is in headlines, rather than the journalistic behaviour.
Also to your final point, the fact is in a morning show format does change my opinion a touch - which is kind of sad - but yes normally that's all light and fluffy and how nice is the couch and coffee crap. But the topic isn't particularly suitable for that either!
in regards to your last sentence. I think that was the biggest sticking point. It was a book tour stop on a morning show. I don't think Coates would've prepared for a debate, but if the morning show wanted to take it in that direction I think it's just common courtesy to say pre-interview "hey presenter X would really like to challenge you on a series of point from the book". Watching the video Coates came across more confused than anything about the direction of the interview was going.
I don't agree. The interviewer went straight to assuming the worst about Coates (that he doesn't think Israel should exist, and that he has a particular problem with a Jewish state). That's no way to have a proper dialogue.
You say it shoulder never be personal, and I agree, but that's exactly what it was. The interviewer was personally offended by the book and its criticism of Israel, which is why he reacted like he did.
Yeah, having watched it that's fair. If it were on a more 'serious' show it woudl be more appropriate.
Top CBS shareholder praises combative Tony Dokoupil interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/09/shari-redstone-cbs-dokoupil-coates/
Translation: His conduct was in line with my own world view, and therefore it was good.
Not sure the best place for this:
I'm not a big Trevor Noah fan or even a Ta-Nehisi Coates one but this is a great discussion that strips away much of the convolutions and obfuscations that often surround this issue, and frames it in the groundlevel consequences of our actions in the world.
I'm not a big Trevor Noah fan or even a Ta-Nehisi Coates one but this is a great discussion that strips away much of the convolutions and obfuscations that often surround this issue, and frames it in the groundlevel consequences of our actions in the world.
Somehow I doubt her objectivity.
Look at those trends...
BBC stops with the Hardtalk programme?
Another interesting conversation from the Coates promo tour. This time talking to Ezra, who you can understand is going to pushback some.
It's chump change to Bezos, AWS is where he makes his money, that's what he's protecting
"I hope your beeper doesn't go off."
Just wow.
Just wow.
This guy is a joke. 
This guy is a joke.
Always the freeking victims.
Its time for CNN to scrub their evening lineup again. Giving these young millennials their own shows with little adult supervision is apparently not working out.
That makes sense. I have no desire to watch the news right now. It's like watching the post-game show after your team loses.
As an aside and not to crow too much, but I took a fair amount of shitty aspersions for the thread I started on this issue. But I think it's fair to say that time has shown that the thread was far more accurate of the truth of what happened, and far more representative of what was being reported on the ground, than the reporting from all of the major news outlets and the gobshite politicians opining on it.
And I did this all not through some elusive promethean foresight but by simply reading the stories from a few of the big sites and a few of the smaller sites, independent journalists and original on the ground reporting, breifly considered any potential bias in the reporting, before posting my interpretation of the story myself. So there.
It was but some people just love to defend the integrity of the BBC and their ilk for whatever reason.