WHEN 'JOURNALISM' IS USED AS A WEAPON by Ken Bhirdo
The O'Donnell interview is a stark example of why there have been 3 assassination attempts on President Trump. Norah O'Donnell just gave us the pettiness of CBS News’ 60 Minutes and yet another disgusting look at what the institution of journalism has become.
There is a difference between tough journalism and uncalled for cruelty. CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell crossed that line Sunday night and it happened less than 24 hours after Cole Allen stormed the White House Correspondents' Dinner with a shotgun, a handgun, and a couple of knives.
President Trump had just been exposed to what appears to be the third attempt on his life. He sat down with O'Donnell on 60 Minutes, a program which long ago lost its reputation as a serious, consequential place to see real journalism. The premise of this interview was seemingly to discuss security failures and the shooter's motives. What he got instead was a journalist who couldn't resist the moment to attempt to humiliate him on national television.
O'Donnell read aloud from Cole Allen's alleged manifesto: "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." Then she asked Trump: "What's your reaction to that?"
It’s hard to fathom such a thing happening, but it has become all too typical for this one President. A sitting president, hours after an assassination attempt, was forced to sit on camera and deny being a pedophile and a rapist, words pulled from the document written by the sick mind of the man who just tried to kill him and his entire cabinet. Words he had heard from the very people like the one interviewing Trump.
This was not journalism. This was theater. Ugly, planned and calculated theater. O'Donnell made a conscious decision to read those specific words on air. The manifesto reportedly contained a great deal of content with political grievances, references to attending "No Kings" rallies, detailed tactical planning. Trump himself noted in the interview that O'Donnell didn't read the parts about the shooter's radicalization or the "No Kings" rallies that may have influenced him. She extracted the most inflammatory, most personally degrading sentence she could find.
Trump, in his typical combative style snapped: "I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would, because you're horrible people." Say what you will about the president's tone he wasn't wrong about the intent. O'Donnell's snarky follow-up question, "Oh, do you think he was referring to you?" confirmed it. She wasn't informing viewers about a manifesto. She was trying to bait and shame Trump into defending himself against the words of the man who tried to kill him.
Ask yourself this question: Would this have happened to Barack Obama or Joe Biden? Imagine a gunman had tried to assassinate President Obama. Imagine the shooter left behind a manifesto containing vile, false personal accusations. Would any major network journalist have read those accusations aloud to Obama's face and then asked, "what's your reaction?"
The answer is obvious and would be a resounding no. The outrage would have been instant and career-ending. It would have been called dehumanizing, and an unconscionable abuse of journalism.
The standard that protects every other president, every other public figure, apparently does not extend to Trump.
This interview came in the immediate aftermath of a violent event. Journalists were in that very hotel. Members of the media were among those who fled or crouched below tables when gunshots were heard. You might expect some sort of reflection about the violent climate created by the very people who were feeling the same fear felt by the President, his family, and those in his administration. Do they not recognize it was their rhetoric that fed Cole Allen’s anger? And he was using the very lies and hyperbole they themselves have used to characterize Trump? Amid all this, CBS chose to amplify the words used by them and the would-be assassin on the most-watched news program in America.
This hateful behavior began in 2015 and this interview is the just the end product of all those years of coverage in which the norms of decency vanish when the subject is Donald Trump. Does O’Donnell think she did something brave by reading those lines to a president’s face? It wasn’t brave, it was shameful. Serious questions deserve to be asked about the attempted attack at the Correspondents' Dinner including Secret Service failures, the shooter's radicalization, and whether the political climate is contributing to violence. Those are the questions a serious journalist would have led with and discussed.
Instead, they once again fueled more dissention, more divisiveness and more hatred. Good job, CBS.
*The author, Ken Bhirdo, is a friend of mine.
