The recently released book “Going There” by television and online leftist journalist Katie Couric is revealing. She engages in “no holds barred” attacks against those who crossed her during both her professional career and private life, which not only include celebrities but her deceased husband as well. But, arguably, the most significant revelation – although not a surprising one – does not concern an individual but, rather, an industry she has served for almost four decades. The story she shares below makes the message she reveals obvious. The only question is whether this revelation, made by pulling back the curtain hiding the media’s mindset, was intentional or not.
Couric’s revelation involves a 2016 interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To Couric, Ginsburg was a liberal icon and personal heroine. She shares that she therefore felt obligated to edit comments made by Ginsburg before the interview transcript was released. Those comments related to a line of questioning Couric pursued as to what Ginsburg’s thinking was about demonstrators who chose to kneel during the national anthem as an act of protest. Ginsburg’s response was not at all what Couric expected. The justice labeled the protests as “dumb and disrespectful.” But Ginsburg’s most biting comments were the ones entirely omitted.
Ginsburg had said not standing for the anthem demonstrated a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life. … While they probably could not have lived in the places they came from … as they became older, they realized that this was youthful folly. And that’s why education is important. … I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
Perhaps in disbelief over what she was hearing from the justice, Couric attempted to pursue the inquiry further asking if athletes are “within their rights to exercise those actions.” Again Ginsburg made clear her view, saying, “Yes. If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventitive. If they want to be arrogant, there’s 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.” Clearly, Ginsburg was no fan of professional football quarterback and anthem-kneeler Colin Kaepernack who had initiated the whole anti-America kneeling campaign.
Ginsburg’s comments revealed she, at heart, was a patriot – one who, contrary to many of her liberal fans, respected the flag and what it represents. As such, she also probably realized for American democracy to survive, all Americans must share a common core of values, which the flag represents. But, by disrespecting it, kneelers destroy the bond holding us together, inflicting a divisive wound difficult to heal.
Couric said one of the most difficult decisions she had to make was whether to cut out Ginsburg’s more severe criticisms about anthem kneelers. She ludicrously reasoned that Ginsburg, then 83, perhaps failed to understand the questions–an argument soundly defeated by the Justice’s very focused responses. Perhaps Couric feared playing a role in Ginsburg being called a patriot for her stance on kneeling, dinging the Judge’s liberal armor in the eyes of fellow liberals who might then condemn her.
In the end, Couric cut parts of the interview out in an effort to “protect” Ginsburg, feeling the issue of racial justice was a “blind spot” for the judge – a comment denigrating a great liberal justice’s mind. Couric’s decision to edit Ginsburg was apparently eased a bit by an email she received a day after the interview from the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs. That email made the claim Ginsburg had “misspoken,” requesting her more biting remarks be cut – a request with which Couric was happy to comply. There should be little doubt, however, had the interviewee been a conservative judge, such a request to omit “misspoken” comments would have made national news – probably on Couric’s “Today” show.
An article listing numerous examples of egregiously deceptive leftist edits supports the message Couric implies from her story about Ginsburg. The message is this: As only 7% of journalists admit to being Republican, much of what we read and watch in the media today has been screened through a liberal lens, fed to a public that liberals unabashedly wish to influence accordingly. Sadly, we are living in an era of fake news in which those we entrust to report it only deliver it with the political spin they wish to give it.
During a recent interview with CNN’s Brian Stelter, former New York Times journalist Bari Weiss admitted, and challenged her liberal interviewer to admit, the above, saying, “But you and I both know that it would be delusional to claim otherwise that touching your finger to an increasing number of subjects that have been deemed third rail by the mainstream institutions and increasingly by some of the tech companies will lead to reputational damage, perhaps you losing your job, your children sometimes being demonized as well, so what happens is a kind of internal self-censorship.”
In reference to the story about COVID-19’s origin from China’s Wuhan lab, Weiss criticized Stelter’s own network for saying “it was racist to investigate the lab leak theory.” She added, “People said to themselves, ‘Why should I die on that hill?’ Why should I take the three or four weeks that it takes to smuggle through an op-ed that doesn’t suit the conventional narrative? I might as well commission the 5,000th op-ed saying Donald Trump is a moral monster.'” Weiss also condemns book publishers, entertainment media and academia for being guilty of “narrowing, in a radical way, what’s acceptable to say and what isn’t.”
Another high profile liberal media voice – Don Lemon – went after social media, claiming regardless of whether or not someone was sharing an opinion on that medium, anything posted should be “based on fact.” It was an ironic comment from a pundit who has never allowed facts to stand in the way of making his own outrageous claims. Lemon went on to ridiculously suggest politicians and the media should be allowed to know the names and locations of social media users who make negative comments about them.
Ever since 1896, the Times has used the slogan, “all the news fit to print.” Unfortunately, we have gone from that era to one in which most newspapers publish “all the news leftists find fit to print!”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.