BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement

March 28, 2007

C BS Does Chapel Hill

Couric-Edwards


Why did this screen shot suddenly appear in the YahooNews John Edwards newswire thread yesterday?  Could it have something to do with that autistic excuse for an interview Katie Couric conducted with the Edwards this past weekend?

As the photo selected by CBS, itself, to lead its story of the interview, its a fair piece of data with which to symbolize the encounter.

As I read it, Mrs. Edwards’ shoulders are tensed and she looks slightly strained and on-the-spot, while locked in a confrontational gaze with Couric.  John Edwards, his eyes trained hard on the interviewer, his characteristic smile upside down and his head slightly cocked (in a gesture that mirrors his wife’s), looks doubting and dubious as well.

As for Couric, she is positioned in the middle of a vestibule or hallway (they’re in Las Vegas, perhaps just inside a suite?) so that the Edwards, close to the wall, have limited room for movement.  It’s hard to read Couric’s expression, but I wouldn’t call it friendly.  Instead, it’s more of a troubled look, her hands positioned as if pressing forward and working away at something.

Given the firestorm of criticism over the interview, the network is now in full damage control mode.  The CBSnews blog, for instance, posts a statement from Edwards saying he felt the couple was treated fairly.  (But then, what else would you expect the presidential candidate to say?)  At the same time, the blog links to a codependent post at Columbia Journalism Review reframing Couric’s MSM-standard “shame game” approach to the technique of “playing devil’s advocate.”  (Okay, so the couple — having just discovered Elizabeth Edwards is terminal — suddenly requires a network anchor, desperate for ratings, to take apart their defenses.)

Of course, the cheapest way to respond — from their faux blog — is just to blame the ’sphere.  In this slap, National Correspondent Bryon Pitts resorts to the “pajamas” strategy, writing:

“…Katie wasn’t simply asking questions stacked on a sheet of paper, but asking questions that she once had to ask herself as her husband battled cancer. Since the interview aired I’ve run into sky cabs, cabbies, housekeepers, and a host of others all talking about “Katie’s interview.” (Granted these aren’t people who ‘blog’ all day, they actually work outside.) Some thought she was right on, others thought she was way off….”

(That’s quite an act of denial, using Couric’s loss of her own husband as an excuse, then leaving the final judgement about her attitude to the common man, considering the furious reactions to the piece registered by Couric’s own readers on the 60 Minutes site.)

My favorite blogospheric reaction, by the way, was this take by Taylor Marsh.  My ears are still burning.

Image: AP Photo/CBS . March 25, 2007. Las Vegas.  via YahooNews.  Note: image was slightly enlarged and sharpened by The BAG.)

  • http://molly.douthett.net lowly grunt

    [bitch]There are “some” who say that Katie has done something to her face.[/bitch]
    I didn’t see the interview but had thought I would watch but didn’t really want to because this is all so painful.
    I think Elizabeth’s answer to mortality — to LIVE — is a wonderful answer to any of those “some people say” inanities. Couric may have them cornered in the above picture but it is a temporary thing. And she knows it.

  • mugatea

    [be-otch fo shiz]
    Katie is a dreadfully awful anchor.
    She reads the teleprompter very poorly – dopey.
    She makes Dan Rather legitimate.
    She’s nothing but an adult inflatable doll.

  • PTate in FR

    I have thought for some time that the modern American media should just give up the pretence that they are about “news” or “information gathering” or any kind of useful activity. I can’t fire Katie Couric or her like, but I haven’t watched TV news in years. Except for Jon Stewart…he at least is honest about the news being entertainment.
    That said, the context of Couric’s questions is very interesting to me. Katie Couric’s husband of 9 years died of colon cancer in 1998, when her daughters were 7 and 2 years old. (The Edwards younger children are 6 and 8). Her sister died of pancreatic cancer in 2001. Anyone who has had a family member die of cancer knows how pitiless late stage cancer is, and I assume that is the context from which Katie Couric is speaking. If, when, Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer progresses, John Edwards will be distracted, and Katie Couric knows that, the Edwards know that, and everyone else in the US knows it.
    But even with cancer, one goes on living. It isn’t as if one day one is well, and the next day one is on one’s deathbed. To pull out of the race at this point is premature. The primaries aren’t for another year, much less the election season. I found Elizabeth Edwards’ comment very moving and true:
    “You know, you really have two choices here. I mean, either you push forward with the things that you were doing yesterday or you start dying. That seems to be your only two choices. If I had given up everything that my life was about – first of all, I’d let cancer win before it needed to. You know, maybe eventually it will win. But I’d let it win before I needed to. And I’d just basically start dying. I don’t want to do that. I want to live”
    What I see in the picture is somewhat different that the BAG’s view. Katie Couric looks to me like a anxious child, and the Edwards’ look as if they are patiently reassuring her.

  • Robin Farley

    This is one reason why it is so difficult to get quality candidates to run for public office. Why on earth should these two wonderful people feel obliged to answer this harpy’s inane questions, over and over again? At the third variation of the same, insensitive question, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards could have justifiably walked out of the interview. But they wouldn’t because in America, running for office means you have to suck it up and be a willing and unflappable target for every media stiff who wants to bolster his or her reputation as a tough investigative reporter. Think about it, Edward R. Murrow to Katie Couric? The media used to serve as an important institution in America, on a par with houses of worship and schools. Institutions used to function as the glue that held the society together, offering a shared frame of reference. Maybe we’re better off without what they have become, but I’m afraid we’ve lost something that we’ll take a generation or more to recreate, once we realize that institutions do matter.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSA0Tckwbk MonsieurGonzo

    ever since she agreed to appear on The John & Elizabeth Show, speculation persists that Ms. Couric’s legs continue to mysteriously disappear.
    Following several attempts to depict Ms. Couric standing in front of (rather than seated behind) a “news anchor’s desk” in classical contrapposto ~ the actress remains tense on stage ~ appearing to suffer from a series of gender-denial wardrobe malapropisms: she remains, a “Katie“, longing to bust out.

  • jtfromBC

    ” Nobody enjoys being trashed ” – K Coric
    Next time you regurgitate an Edwards type interview remember trashing others is trashing Kathy.
    PTate in FR said; “Katie Couric looks to me like a anxious child, and the Edwards’ look as if they are patiently reassuring her.”
    Exactly my assumption but could be just wishful thinking or denial on my part.

  • margaret

    Was this picture taken after the interview? If so, then, it could be a shot of the Edwards’s reaction to Couric’s tastelessness: hence, the Bag’s interpretation.
    Couric is artificial to the core, and her manner of speaking reveals it, as well as her bland expressionless face as she speaks. Sh’e reading lines which are fed into her ear by a hidden microphone, as is the routine for tv media personalities. What seems spontaneous is very well rehearsed and scripted, except for the reactions of the interviewees. That fact just underscores how well the Edwards’ handled things. I especially liked John Edward’s
    candid response about why people should vote or not vote for him. He is just too smart, too self-confident and decent to be railroaded by the media crowd into saying something stupid, as poor Kerry was.

  • Cactus

    I saw most of the interview and have to admit that by the fourth time she said words to the effect of ’some people have said’ or some say, for short, I was ready to strangle her. The whole tone of her voice, combined with the disingenuous words, was cloying and bordering on sarcasm. ESPECIALLY when one knows that her own husband had died from cancer about 5 years ago. Were she really trying to be sympathetic, she could have said that she knew from experience how difficult it is and how are they handling it, etc. She would have been forgiven, IMHO, for letting the reporter personalize the story, because this is a personal story, one that anyone who has a family member with cancer has gone through.
    By the end of the interview, when I breathed again, I was pretty sure she was trying to fit in some republican talking points. But then, I guess that’s what one would expect when one of her first guests on the “news?” program was the comedian Limbaugh.In fact, my bet would be that she was told to keep Edwards from getting in any campaign points, thus keeping them on the subject of her cancer ad nauseam. After all, CBS didn’t fire Dan Rather for criticizing the democrats.
    As for the photo above, I think people are being too judgmental about Mrs. Edwards’ posture, remember she has a cracked rib and has had a procedure on the other rib. She is probably in pain whenever she moves. THAT she is moving around with her husband is a testament to her determination. As for the body language, Couric’s jacket is too tight and wrinkled, which makes one think she is not entirely comfortable. Her hands are held up in front of her chest, which might indicate a protective reaction. Edwards, OTOH, has one hand in his pocket; doesn’t that mean sort of a ’show me’ stance? It looks to me like the two women are engaging and Mr. Edwards is thinking ‘when can we get away from this idiot?’

  • ummabdulla

    I always had the impression that Katie Couric was very petite. But in this picture, Elizabeth Edwards is looking up to her, and John Edwards doesn’t seem much taller. Are they short, or is she standing on something?

  • http://windingroad.typepad.com Jaye

    Time for Katie to go. CBS tried. They made a misake. She is terrible. It has nothing to do with her as a woman. She is just not good. A woman who worked while her husband had cancer did this bad with people who she could have identified with?

  • a reader

    Disclosure: I’ve always disliked Katie Couric and if I were to vote in the primary today I would vote for Edwards.
    But sorry, I came away unimpressed by the Edwards in their interview. To me, they came across as a political couple with legitimate ambitions — both personal and in service to the country. But it all felt to me polished and maybe even cool rather than authentic. This may in fact be how they feel but that photo from the other day indicates otherwise. Are they in denial, are they in fact courageous or is this at heart a political show? I dunno; maybe all three but unfortunately Katie Couric didn’t get them to actually reveal anything, at least to me.

  • Jackie

    Simply put, katie needs to go! Either that, or CBS will Go UNDER!

  • jennifer de St. Georges

    Ever since Katie Curic looked at the camera when she first started, (having been paid 15 million dollars) and asked the viewers to send in their suggestions for how she should end her show each night……I have not tuned to her program again. If she can’t work that one out, she has overstayed her welcome……and I wanted her to succeed