CNN's Reliable Sources Lightly Tickles its Usual Suspects - the Oprah Apology Critique

Today my solipsistic vitriol is politely leveled at CNN's Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz's show is a Sunday news hour that attempts to admonish its news-gathering fraternity (if females are actors, instead of actresses, then female journalists are members of the fraternity, not the sorority) for weak journalism. Kurtz's "news review-lite" exacts temperate revenge upon its selected errant peers by grazing the "bad guys" (as the newscasters refer to the miscreants of the weak) with feathers under the armpits with the purpose of inciting guilty giggles about what they got wrong during the previous week.

Now, were I to be the Punisher, I would probably do something more dastardly, like force Kurtz to brandish a whip and flagellate himself and his peers and make them eat their printed copy to keep from screaming at the blows (but that sounds a bit kinky, so I'll dismiss that thought). Inasmuch as I am not a guest (nor would I ever be), nor am I a journalist (I think, therefore I am not a journalist), I have to settle for CNN's attempt at scolding his fellow men and women. Good concept, but I don't think they understand the gravity of the self-analysis they should really, truly, undertake. I mean, they can make really big mistakes that have dastardly consequences - like not questioning the motives for going to War in Iraq, and speaking out about the true idiocy of the idea. They can ruin lives of the deluded and defamed, thereby assisting in the demise of majority uneducated human beings who want a tad too much publicity for their mediocre talent (but a "shout out" to them for achieving their dream). Journalists can destroy nations, and, especially when they don't make sufficient inquiry -- they can be unwitting assistants to murder by their acquiescence by deciding not to question deeply enough, instead, running with the Bulls and getting swept by the multitudes.

But, of course, like Dan Abrams' MSNBC show "Beat the Press," Reliable Sources takes the soft approach. You know, it's like they give themselves a half-dozen roses instead of a full dozen to reprimand each other. Obviously, the news sources on Reliable Sources can still feel good about themselves, because their shows suggest that the media can truly be objective about something about which they can rarely be objective: themselves. I mean, really, they interview important people, they go to parties with them, and even develop friendships which, would obviously skew their judgment.

Like the police who conduct internal investigations, or the Catholic Church's handling of the scandals in their clerical ranks -- really, what kind of punishment would you give yourself for doing something wrong? One less piece of chocolate? Right.

So this week, among the discussion about the television writers and theater union strikes, afterwards, Kurtz set his sights on Oprah Winfrey and her apology to the world for not doing thorough background checks for her highly publicized charitable school in Africa. Apparently, a woman selected by Oprah to run the school abused her authority and molested some of the kids. I haven't really followed the story, honestly. But, the question asked was something along the lines of how did she do in acquitting herself of the negative publicity.

The guests were Michael Medvev, a rep from one of the Hollywood movie rags, and a a twenty-something-looking guest named Jill Pozner. It is to commend her on her role in elevating the discussion about Oprah's apology that I write today. She gets the Snap Back reward by suggesting that the question raised by Kurtz was, in effect, stupid, and missed the real story.

Ms. Pozner didn't use those words, but she chided Mr. Kurtz that the focus should have been on the very issue which caused Oprah's tears: child abuse. Well done, Ms. Pozner. Fascinated by the identity of this woman who could so feistily chide an elder CNN reporter, I looked up the background of this intrepid fighter for better journalism. Ms. Posner has been a real advocate for fair media and was a part of a same-named national organization, FAIR until she started her own gig, WIMN (took me ten minutes to figure out the double-entendre of the acronym). So let's roll the transcript, peppered by my own inner thoughts about the seriousness of a news show that reduces responses to 20 seconds or less:

KURTZ: All right. I need 20 seconds from each of you. [SEE ME SCREAMING AT THE TV:" AS IF ONE CAN DO ANYTHING IN TWENTY SECONDS, AND TEN MORE STILL, IT WOULD BE A FLOP"]

Michael Medved, how is Oprah Winfrey handling this matter? [SEE ME, COUNTING THE SECONDS - "ONE, TWO... HMMM. SOUNDS LIKE A THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN RESPONSE IS IN ORDER - HURRY UP, MICHAEL BEFORE HE FORGETS WHAT HE ASKED YOU"]

MEDVED: She's handling it well. I mean, look, it ought to be acknowledged that this is one star who really has consistently tried to use some of her wealth and power to benefit very unfortunate people. The fact that some of that trust and some of that donation was abused I don't think it's right to blame on her.

KURTZ: Jennifer Pozner?

POZNER [MY ITALICS AND CAPS FOR EMPHASIS: WELL, MEDIA COVERAGE -- OUR SHOW AND OTHERS -- SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE TRAUMA THAT THESE GIRLS FACED AND THE SYSTEMS THAT WEREN'T IN PLACE TO KEEP THEM SAFE AND THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA, NOT ON HOW PAINFUL THIS WAS FOR OPRAH. I'M SURE IT WAS PAINFUL FOR HER. I'M SURE SHE'S VERY SINCERE. BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT IT AS A CELEBRITY STORY, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL ISSUES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. [ME: "you go girl," But I digress, so let's continue].

[LET'S SEE - NO RESPONSE EXCEPT TO STICK TO HIS SCRIPT][KURTZ: "Ray Richmond, I give her credit though for not hiding behind spokesmen or putting out official statements. She went to the microphone and she took some responsibility."

RAY RICHMOND [THINKING: Uh-oh.. we have a chick who thinks.. I mustn't let her make me look bad. I'll play it both ways:

RICHMOND: Yes, I give Oprah credit for that, but I agree with Jennifer, that the focus should not be on, ooh, Oprah the celebrity, what's happening. It should more be on the social issue behind this, which would have never seen the light of day if it hadn't been Oprah.

[RICHMOND - BUT LET ME GET MY DIG IN NONETHELESS...]

And I would have been less suspicion just of, you know, her own P.R. ends if she didn't have the same reaction to this that she had to Hermes closing their doors on her.

Note the slide back into "celebridumb*" coverage - All three pundits, besides Ms. Pozner, wanted to engage in a media fest centered on chipping away at the armor of a powerful woman, yet again by referring to a cultural misunderstanding in France with regard to a Hermes shop, and her philanthropic efforts, however, misguided they may be.

KURTZ: All right.

Good job, Ms. Pozner.

* And, by the way, you read the word first here: "celebridumb" - an aka for "The Media" who, as grown men and women, take off their journalism hats and, instead, bask in navel-gazing discussions about inane pop culture subjects or "targets," to a frightening degree.

Sphere: Related Content