Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Matt Lauer and George W. Bush
Hi everyone, sorry it has been so long since I posted, just never got around to it I guess. Anyway, last night Matt Lauer's interview with former President George W. Bush aired on NBC. I thought that it was very interesting. I really have a problem with Matt Lauer, he can seem very smug at some times, and at other times he can be a real, for lack of a better word, asshole. He was extremely critical of Bush, his questions were pointed and harsh. He also interrupted Bush on many occasions in the middle of an answer, something that bothers me to no end. Now, I wouldn't have a problem with his questions if he were a fair person. He grills many a member of the GOP in his interviews, or really just people that don't believe in the same thing he believes in. However in interviews with people with similar viewpoints, he is not nearly as tough. I'm not saying he skirts around the important issues, he just doesn't press the matter with certain people. It's just that I feel that a newscast can't be objective if I can tell what the reporter giving the newscast, or interview, or whatever, stance is on the issue, there is a problem and it really be considered a true, unsubjective interview. And Matt Lauer is one of the worst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems that Matt Lauer uses his political rivals as "debate fodder" if you will. Badically he interviews his rivals and triea to make them look bad or stupid, its just unethical, he should keep himself more open minded to what other people think and believe and he'd be a lot better off.
ReplyDeleteJournalism in general is an incredibly murky territory. The idealism of every journalistic actor is to persuade an audience, and that is exactly what Lauer was doing.
ReplyDeleteWhat this post fails to recognize is how there are hundreds of conservative reporters that do the exact same thing to politicians that hold liberal views. You mention one instance of how a Liberal practitioner insulted a GOP ex-President, but think of how many times Fox News has interviewed him to make him look good, as well as how many times Conservative Media harshly interviews a Democratic Idea holders to make them look worse, plus how Liberals interview Liberals to make them look better.
The point I'm making isn't that what Lauer did was or wasn't right, I'm just saying it's hypocritical for you to only mention the Right side of the spectrum when in general Politics and Media go hand in hand with flinging shit like primates. Lauer had a job to do, to interview Bush. He as a journalist and as a representative of his ideals had to do what he had to do to advertise his beliefs, then he did so. If you 2 are really going to complain about an interview that embarrassed a politician, then I think you two have a lot to learn of politics, advertising, and persuasiveness.
"He also interrupted Bush on many occasions in the middle of an answer"
I do agree that this is unprofessional, but you have to do what you have to do. There have been plenty of instances when this has happened to a liberal politician being interviewed by a Conservative.
"It's just that I feel that a newscast can't be objective if the I can tell what the reporter giving the newscast, or interview, or whatever, stance is on the issue." Welcome to the world of Modern News Media Coverage. I guarantee you guys that EVERYTHING in the media is biased, EVEN the facts. Which really says something about the ethics of humanity when logic has been tainted by opinion, which leads to me to Steven's comment on how Lauers behavior was "just unethical."
This irritates me because in no way was Lauers behavior unethical. You want a lesson in ethics and what is morally correct and what is morally reprehensible, we can talk about Bush's "Interrogation Methods." But that is another debate for another time, my point is that what Lauer did was expected of him, just as other conservative journalists do what is expected of them to make liberals look bad. If you claim that Lauer's interview with Bush was "unethical" then I'm seriously concerned about the definition you have with the term of Ethics. Unless Lauer got up on his chair and started handing Bush Bamboo Lashings on National Televion, I don't consider his actions Unethical. Unorthodox, perhaps, but Unethical, far from.
Steven, you argue "contra bonos mores" but I argue with "lex artis" and "ex mea sententia"
Zach, You make a good point, I was thinking about this the other day. Nowadays, it seems that there is no orthodox journalism. I just think that both the Republicans and Democrats should focus more on improving their own parties than trying to bash the opposite. For example, Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck spend most of their time trying to make the democratic party look bad, and people like Matt Lauer do the same to republicans.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm curious, do you take Latin as well?
Jake, I apologize for any miscommunication errors I might've brought up.
ReplyDeleteSteven, thanks! "I just think that both the Republicans and Democrats should focus more on improving their own parties than trying to bash the opposite." you took the words out of my mouth, pretty much every advertisement I watch is "vote for me because the other sucks."
And no, I don't take latin, but I have a dictionary full of inspirational latin phrases, and all the passwords on my computer are latin phrases xD
It just seems unethical to promote yourself by demeaning another person/group etc. It all boils down to basically bullying when you think about it. Also it seems that America has been back and forth when they don't get results. People need to remember that George W. Bush put this country in debt with the "war on terror". Since Obama hasn't really fixed anything, and I'm not blaming him, Bush slaughtered the calf and gave it to Obama. You cant snap your fingers and fix a nations problems. I'm getting off topic but basically all I'm saying is that both partys should be focusing on what the people want and improving the nation because it seems every time I listen to the radio or turn on the tv its one politician talking garbage about another. It needs to stop, unproductive arguing won't get us anywhere, the politicians we elect should take action, starting with ending the war (possible article) so we can save BILLIONS a year.
ReplyDelete"It just seems unethical to promote yourself by demeaning another person/group etc." Well then I guess every reporter out there is unethical xD
ReplyDelete"Since Obama hasn't really fixed anything" Debatable. Very debatable.
Let me clarify, Obama has not drastically changed that much. Or at least not what his voters were expecting him to do. Since there weren't that many immediate results since his election besides the health care reform, the interest in the democratic party has declined, as evidenced by the increased number of republicans voted into office. I'm sure it will be the same thing over again, if republicans cannot fix the problems, then democrats will be elected again and so on and so forth until something big happens that surprises or impresses the nation. This is one of the reasons I prefer to stay neutral. the majority of voters are very very susceptible to changing their mind, example: Bush messed up, people vote in Obama to fix the debt and war problems. Of course, four years isn't enough time, but the voters don't completely understand. Republicans take this as an advantage to say "Obama isn't doing anything". Voters listen to people like that and believe most of the things they say are credible (even though they might not be) and begin to sway towards the republican side. The same thing happened with Bush but the other way around. The same thing will probably happen to the next president who will most likely be republican. It all boils down to having more patience and understanding.
ReplyDelete