Katie Couric had a tough job interviewing John and Elizabeth Edwards this past Sunday on “60 Minutes.” Elizabeth Edwards is a courageous and classy woman who is facing an extremely rough medical and emotional road ahead now that her cancer is in her bones.
One would think that Katie Couric — given that when she anchored the TODAY Show she continued to work and deal with her husband Jay’s suffering and ultimate death from colon cancer — would have handled the Edwards’ interview with the right combination of empathy and directness. But that didn’t happen.
As I watched the interview, I was blown away. In fact, I had to watch it twice on tape to make sure of what I saw and heard. I was really turned off by Katie’s approach. Many of her comments and questions were intrusive and inappropriate. They were over the line, particularly conducted a few days after Elizabeth Edwards’ diagnosis. When Katie asked John Edwards if he might be “capitalizing” politically on his wife’s incurable cancer, I was baffled. John and Elizabeth Edwards already tragically lost their 16-year-old son. They are now facing the terrible truth of her incurable cancer. Where exactly does Katie Couric get off asking a question that even remotely assumes that John Edwards has anything in his track record that would indicate that he would take political advantage of his wife’s cancer?
Katie also said, “Some people watching this would say ‘I would put my family first and my job second’ and you are doing the exact opposite. You are putting your work first and your family second.” She referred to “some people” questioning John Edwards’ “insatiable ambition” and his “capitalizing” on this. Huh? Let me get this right. I understand Katie is supposed to ask tough questions. That’s what we do as journalists. But what’s this “some people watching would say?” Who’s saying that? I know Rush Limbaugh questioned or challenged John and Elizabeth Edwards moving forward in this presidential race. But who else is questioning the motives or intent, much less the appropriateness, of John and Elizabeth Edwards decision to stay in this race?
The idea that Katie started numerous questions with “some people say” or “others say” is a journalistic cop-out. Cite your source, Katie. Are there polls that I haven’t heard about that show a significant percentage of Americans questioning or challenging John and Elizabeth Edwards’ decision? I must have missed that. When interviewers use the “some people” approach, it’s often a way of not having to say that they in fact feel that way.
What’s especially odd about Katie taking this interview approach is that when she was dealing with her husband’s cancer, she continued to work as a broadcaster. In fact, she did a tremendous public service when she had a colonoscopy on the air in an effort to promote early detection as the best protection against colon cancer. When Katie did that, I don’t remember anyone questioning her motives. I don’t remember even thinking that Katie might be doing it for the ratings. All I thought was that Katie made a very personal decision with her family to do what she thought was best.
John Edwards clearly believes that his running for president is more than a job. He and his wife see it as a cause, as a significant form of public service. What’s particularly troubling is that Katie Couric wound up becoming a big part of a story that should never have been about her. It’s a story about Elizabeth Edwards’ courageous fight and the message it sends to other cancer survivors. It’s a story about the Edwards’ very strong marriage and their struggle to move John’s presidential campaign forward. Katie’s unnecessarily intrusive interviewing approach wound up making big headlines on the CBS News Web site, which was inundated with people who were offended by her performance. It was called “horrible” and “inappropriately harsh.” She had a responsibility to ask certain questions, but not to the degree and the extent that she did.
Here’s my greatest concern, and I hope I’m wrong about this: Right now, Katie Couric is third in a three-way ratings race on the evening news. She’s getting paid big money to bring more eyeballs to the “CBS Evening News.” To date, she hasn’t done it. Could it be that Katie’s over-the-top and poorly-timed effort on “60 Minutes” was intended to draw attention to herself and potentially boost the ratings of her program? It’s a legitimate question, particularly when an experienced and talented broadcaster (who has experienced so much personal tragedy connected to cancer) takes such a surprisingly inappropriate tack in such an important and high-profile interview. Say it ain’t so Katie ... Say it ain’t so.
The Dan Rather fallout
On another note, I must acknowledge the nearly 300 e-mails I received last week in response to my column on MSNBC.com criticizing Dan Rather for his recent speech in which he argued that the mainstream media was “spineless” for lacking the courage to challenge the White House and corporate America. Apparently, not many people agreed with me. Between 80 to 90 percent of the e-mails I got said I was dead wrong and that Dan Rather had a compelling argument. Some in fact thought I was “jealous” of Dan, while others said I had “little right to criticize” such a giant in our industry. I still stand by that column, but I greatly appreciate all those that took the time to write such thoughtful, and in many cases, truly nasty, creative and personally offensive e-mails. I found them very entertaining, and in some cases, highly educational.
Write to Steve Adubato at SAdubato@aol.com