Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Couric on Better Behavior in Interview with Dep. Sec. State Armitage (Impact of FR Outcry?)
The Today Show

Posted on 12/16/2003 4:37:23 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest

In a just-completed interview with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, the Katie Couric on display was a far cry from the bitter, clenched-jawed woman of yesterday.

Couric's interview of Gen. Ricardo Sanchez yesterday was a festival of attempts to downplay the significance of Saddam's capture and to highlight perceived shortcomings in US policy and accomplishments.

No one would confuse the Couric of today with a cheerleader for US policy. But while she turned no handstands on behalf of Pres. Bush, neither did she second-guess or undermine in the same way she attempted yesterday.

It could be that Katie was reacting to the tone and the physical presence of the guest himself. The shaved, bullet-headed Armitage is an imposing figure.

And from the beginning of the interview, he set a very brisk, no-nonsense tone with Katie, pointedly addressing her as "Miss Couric."

She was most solicitous in inquiring after the health of Sec. of State Colin Powell, following his surgery yesterday for prostate cancer. That would be expected since the moderate Powell has always been on the liberals' "good" list.

But in her questions on other issues, from the information gleaned in interrogations of Saddam, the possible capture of Ibrahim Al-Duri, James Baker's diplomatic mission with the French and others, the carping and second-guessing was largely gone, and the questions were essentially straightforward.

Even on the most controversial issue, a leaked memo by Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in which he set forth in stark terms opposition to the awarding of rebuilding contracts to countries who hadn't helped us in Iraq, Couric kept her venom in check.

As is well known, there is a rift between the warm and fuzzy types at State and the harder-liners at Defense. To Armitage's credit, he defended Wolfowitz strongly and expressed support for the views expressed in the memo.

So striking was the change in Couric's demeanor, that I could only conclude that the outpouring of criticism in the wake of her contemptible performance of yesterday had an impact. Neither she nor her NBC bosses could have ignored the avalanche of messages from FReepers and no doubt many others across the country condemning Couric's negative, carping interview of Gen. Sanchez.

It was a chastened Katie Couric on display today. To my fellow FReepers, I say "bravo." I sincerely feel you have made a difference.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armitage; colinpowell; katiecouric; liberalmediabias; richardarmitage; saddamhussein; todayshow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last
To: cajungirl
WARNING: Your computer is vulnerable to a virus that could potentially let others control your Free Republic screen name and insert curious or even harmful tag lines. Should tag lines reading anything like "I love Hillary," or "Howard Dean Rocks!" appear after your screen name, contact the site administrator immediately.

Or, for only $19.95, you can install and run our new anti-liberal virus program, DemzzOut.
121 posted on 12/16/2003 8:04:55 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
I bet she got a male hooker last night and got some... or female....
122 posted on 12/16/2003 8:09:09 AM PST by Porterville (Every time a liberal speaks an angel is shackled in chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Hmm, an effect with no cause. Paging Issac Newton for a re-write!

You've distorted an ontological certainty into an epistemological compulsion. All effects have a cause. Not all causes are knowable. So it's one thing to say it happened, there must be an explanation (obviously true), and quite another thing to say it happened, let's assign an explanation (why?). To assign a cause without evidence is to sort among the sheep guts for a sign.

Let's not be silly. Katie changed her demeanor. It might because you yelled and it might be because she's preoccupied by holiday shopping. Since we have equal evidence for both theories (none.) neither can be asserted.

This is a long thread about nothing. Nobody has any clue why Katie's demeanor was different today.

123 posted on 12/16/2003 9:34:46 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
It might because you yelled and it might be because she's preoccupied by holiday shopping. Since we have equal evidence for both theories (none.) neither can be asserted.

Well, since we are striving for precision, I must point out you are wrong.

We do have evidence for scenario #1, since we observed her behavior and demeanor yesterday, and faxes, email, and telephone calls ensued (*evidence*) and today she appears with a toned down attitude.

Holiday shopping? You're right. No evidence she does her own.

Mind you, I do think there is something to the idea she was told to ratchet it down a bit thanks to the inundation of irate viewers' complaints, but this post is addressing your incorrect assertion that we have "no evidence" as to at least one reason she behaved differently today.

And I'll just add that we have presented other instances where the audience outcry has resulted in changes. I am fond of my Arnett example.

124 posted on 12/16/2003 10:03:40 AM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
We do have evidence for scenario #1, since we observed her behavior and demeanor yesterday, and faxes, email, and telephone calls ensued (*evidence*) and today she appears with a toned down attitude.

NO YOU DON'T!!!! The letters and faxes are not "evidence"!!!! There is no question the letters and faxes EXIST!!! Good grief.

Now I understand how the O.J. jury could happen.

You have an observation: demeanor 1. You have the letters and faxes. You have a second observation: demeanor 2.

You have no EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION between the faxes and the change between 1 and 2. NONE. NOTHING.

This not new. Come on. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The Reagen movie is a case in contrast, and should make you doubt the explanation, rather than accept it. There was EVIDENCE of a connection. We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

I really didn't mean to make such a big deal of this. But, please. Apparently there are lots of people walking around who can't distinguish between causation and correlation.

125 posted on 12/16/2003 11:07:39 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
other instances where the audience outcry has resulted in changes.

I'm sorry,I just noticed this one.

Of course, an "outcry" can result in a "change". We are not arguing over whether it CAN, nor are we arguing over whether it HAS, nor are we arguing over whether it might have in this instance.

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT.

126 posted on 12/16/2003 11:10:24 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan; cyncooper
We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Regans in response to public outcry.

Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.

http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353

Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?

127 posted on 12/16/2003 11:29:56 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan; cyncooper
We know the network noticed the outcry; they commented on it, etc.

CBS explicitly denied that they pulled The Reagans in response to public outcry.

Here's the URL of an article in which CBS head Moonves "absolutely denies" that he yielded to public pressure in pulling The Reagans.

http://gossipmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=60&A=353

Yet you were willing to find "evidence" of cause and effect in that case. Why aren't we entitled to do the same in this case?

128 posted on 12/16/2003 11:30:13 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Oh, brother!

Don't compare my comments to the OJ Trial, my FRiend.

I have loads of commonsense.

I didn't say the audience response was *proof*, did I? I said it was *evidence*, which you said there was none of.

The behavior-letters-behavior sequence can lend itself to a certain interpretation, which I tend to think is the case, and it is by definition *evidence*.

I hope you can understand the difference between pointing out "evidence" and "proof", since you compared it to Couric "holiday shopping", something we have no way of knowing Couric engages in, unless she said so, which you did not offer, so my point is your offering the two scenarios as possible explanations for her change in attitude was not a logical comparison.

Good Lord.
129 posted on 12/16/2003 11:39:27 AM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
O'Reilly is always making those disengenuous statements in support of the left, in his effort to be perceived as fair and balance. I had to laugh during his interview with Kerrey last night, when Kerrey got obviously annoyed with Bill and Bill immediately changed his tone and complemented Kerrey.
130 posted on 12/16/2003 11:41:08 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
We are not arguing over whether it CAN, nor are we arguing over whether it HAS, nor are we arguing over whether it might have in this instance.

Oh, yoohoo, Mr. correlation/causation! I went out of my way to say in my post that there is **not proof**, though I *thought* it more possible than not, because we know about audience response, not holiday shopping, and we know of other instances where it has influenced network decisions.

Get it?

131 posted on 12/16/2003 11:42:49 AM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I can't bear listen to Kerry and I turned it off!
132 posted on 12/16/2003 11:52:26 AM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
We've not even been talking about "proof", which of course is different from "evidence".

My point remains that you have absolutely no evidence to connect the two things you are connecting. Not a shred, not a suggestion. Nothing.

And I doubt I'm going to make you understand that.

133 posted on 12/16/2003 12:06:43 PM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
I saw that! He b*t*h smacked her for sure!

She was left with absolutely nothing else to say at the end of the segment!

And stupid MSNBC is actually continually running this interview!
134 posted on 12/16/2003 12:09:49 PM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
Well, the denial is relevant, but not conclusive. It neither argues for nor against causation.

It does show awareness of the "outcry" at a decision-making level within the organization, and awareness would be the first, or threshold thing you would need to demonstrate.

In other words, a denial of causation by someone whose veracity you don't trust is more evidence of possible causation than is silence from that same someone.

135 posted on 12/16/2003 12:15:11 PM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Nonsense.
136 posted on 12/16/2003 12:18:57 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
The behavior-letters-behavior sequence can lend itself to a certain interpretation, which I tend to think is the case, and it is by definition *evidence*.

Exactly. This is precisely your logical error, and this error is in every list of logical fallacies going back at least to Aristotle.

The sequence is a sequence. It is evidence of NOTHING. PRECISELY NOTHING.

Do you honestly not understand this? This is not all a joke?

137 posted on 12/16/2003 12:20:03 PM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
I think you don't understand what I am saying.
138 posted on 12/16/2003 12:21:05 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
All right. Let's just disagree. Not something to make an enemy over. Sincerest regards.
139 posted on 12/16/2003 12:39:37 PM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Peace.

:)
140 posted on 12/16/2003 1:21:12 PM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson