Young People, News, And The Future
By Chris Evans
Our generation gets an unfair rap as slackers, thanks to many a teen comedy and countless anti-drug public service announcements. However, I think those of us who are close enough to the demographic to have a clearer view of young people’s daily habits know that is far from the truth. Our mothers and fathers, who are accustomed to reading the daily newspaper to find out what has happened in the world in the past 24 hours, are using themselves as an example of comparison when assessing our news habits.
But considering the technological advancements in recent years it is unfair to compare the traditions of yesterday to the fast-paced, multi-tasked world of 2007 where information doesn’t need to be bleakly placed on a rectangular black and white piece of paper, and instead can be accessed instantly from any device with a modem. Through talking to some people under the age of 25 who consider themselves to be responsible, aware Americans I’ve discovered experiences that directly contrast the research done by the Shorenstein Center, which was the basis for the New York Times article, “Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice.”
Jane Hirt, editor of Red Eye, was exactly right when she said in the article, “They pick and choose what they want on their iPods, what to TiVo and watch whenever they want, and so forth.”
After talking with some college students with slight variances in age, I’ve found that many young people get their news from outlets that appeal to their sense of speed and control—such as the Internet. Jessica Dragonetti, 20, a junior at Marymount Manhattan College majoring in English said, “Every night when I come home from class I check CNN.com to see what has happened throughout the day. It’s the easiest way for me stay updated on what’s happening in America and in the rest of the world.”
Even though Dragonetti adds, “I don’t really have much time for TV”, she does still rely on television primarily for local news. “The Internet is a great place for news that’s affecting the nation, but watching the local news on TV is the best way for me to find out what’s happening right here in Manhattan.” This is slightly in line with the findings that young people are more likely to find their news on TV than on the web, but in Dragonetti’s case, she uses both mediums for daily news.
Grace Dawson, 19, who attends the Art Institute Online of Pittsburgh, Pa., says she has to rely on the Internet for her news because she doesn’t have cable. “I don’t really need TV because these days everything is on the Internet,” Dawson said. “When I log onto America Online a window pops up that tells me what the important news stories were that day, and if anything catches my interest, I’ll read it. That’s the great thing about online news.” She continues, “If something bores me, I don’t have to read it. If one story out of an entire page of news interests me, I only have to read that one. That’s different from TV where I have to sit there for an hour listening to boring stuff just to wait for the last ten minutes where the real story comes on.”
Dawson and Dragonetti are only two people out of millions of young people all across America, but their experiences are in-line with my own news habits as well as most other people in my demographic that I know. I’m not sure if maybe 1,800 people weren’t enough to do an accurate study on the behavior of young people when it comes to news, or if Dawson and Dragonetti are simply anomalies. But one thing I will say for sure is that the issue is much more complicated than the New York Times article would have you believe.
Showing posts with label Critiquing The News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critiquing The News. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Future Of Newspapers
Young People And Their News Habits
By Therese Whelan
In this age of easy technology where young people spend about six hours a day consuming media, it seems that teens have ample opportunity to stay informed on news. However, according to a study by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, teenagers and young adults are not regularly following the news.
“I like being naïve,” says Shana Whelan, 17. She says she doesn’t pay attention to the news on a daily basis, because with her busy life it’s “easy to forget about it.” Like Shana, most teens and young adults do not find time to follow the news regularly. The study titled, “Young People and News,” found that only 16 percent of people studied aged 18-30 said they read the news daily, and half of all teens and young adults said they rarely, if ever read a newspaper. This is compared to the 35 percent of adults over age 30 who read the paper daily.
Unlike their parent’s generation, young people who do follow the news lack a routine. The majority prefers to receive their news from the television or radio, rather than in print or online. But this seems to be a less focused method than the traditional reading of a paper. According to the study, 81 percent of teens only listen to radio news if it comes on while listening to something else. And 60 percent of young adults only watch a portion of the national TV newscasts before switching to another channel.
When Colleen McGowan, age 50, was growing up she remembers the daily paper arriving every morning. There was one television in the house, and her parents watched the news every night. She says that now she mostly sticks to newspapers, because she doesn’t “like to have the images” of war in her head. Today, many households have multiple TVs and young people are free to make their own viewing selections, and news is not their first choice. The long war in Iraq seems to be far away from most young people’s thoughts, though it is a daily topic in the news.
Some teens find they are not very interested in things that don’t directly affect them. Whelan says she and her friends don’t pay to much attention to things that don’t “involve us,” but she expects when she is older she will have a greater interest in the news. She predicts that soon, most news will be watched on cell phones and computers. “I think it would be much easier to watch a five minute clip on 10 different topics,” said Whelan.
It is uncertain what changes the newspaper industry will have to make to attract young people who want abbreviated news. Teens today are used to being able to make selections about what music they want to hear, shows they want to watch and what they want to read. Will it take a glossy magazine like newspaper full of pictures to attract their attention? Today, big news can travel faster than ever, but the key is making young people care enough that they want to be informed.
By Therese Whelan
In this age of easy technology where young people spend about six hours a day consuming media, it seems that teens have ample opportunity to stay informed on news. However, according to a study by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, teenagers and young adults are not regularly following the news.
“I like being naïve,” says Shana Whelan, 17. She says she doesn’t pay attention to the news on a daily basis, because with her busy life it’s “easy to forget about it.” Like Shana, most teens and young adults do not find time to follow the news regularly. The study titled, “Young People and News,” found that only 16 percent of people studied aged 18-30 said they read the news daily, and half of all teens and young adults said they rarely, if ever read a newspaper. This is compared to the 35 percent of adults over age 30 who read the paper daily.
Unlike their parent’s generation, young people who do follow the news lack a routine. The majority prefers to receive their news from the television or radio, rather than in print or online. But this seems to be a less focused method than the traditional reading of a paper. According to the study, 81 percent of teens only listen to radio news if it comes on while listening to something else. And 60 percent of young adults only watch a portion of the national TV newscasts before switching to another channel.
When Colleen McGowan, age 50, was growing up she remembers the daily paper arriving every morning. There was one television in the house, and her parents watched the news every night. She says that now she mostly sticks to newspapers, because she doesn’t “like to have the images” of war in her head. Today, many households have multiple TVs and young people are free to make their own viewing selections, and news is not their first choice. The long war in Iraq seems to be far away from most young people’s thoughts, though it is a daily topic in the news.
Some teens find they are not very interested in things that don’t directly affect them. Whelan says she and her friends don’t pay to much attention to things that don’t “involve us,” but she expects when she is older she will have a greater interest in the news. She predicts that soon, most news will be watched on cell phones and computers. “I think it would be much easier to watch a five minute clip on 10 different topics,” said Whelan.
It is uncertain what changes the newspaper industry will have to make to attract young people who want abbreviated news. Teens today are used to being able to make selections about what music they want to hear, shows they want to watch and what they want to read. Will it take a glossy magazine like newspaper full of pictures to attract their attention? Today, big news can travel faster than ever, but the key is making young people care enough that they want to be informed.
The Future Of Newspapers
Reading Newspapers Is A Dying Practice
By Glenn Burwell
In reading the article, “Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice,” I identified with the authors opinion of young people receiving their news in nontraditional ways, and that print news becoming less significant. It is my personal belief that newspapers are obsolete.
The traditional newspaper is much too cumbersome, the stories are hard to find, and the pictures are rarely in color. Receiving news from the Internet and is not only faster, but it is far more accessible. When I am on the go and I need to catch up on current events, I don’t want to hunt for a newspaper stand and pay to read one or two stories. It is unnecessary for one to go through such a hassle when a few clicks on a Blackberry or on any standard cell phone with internet access will deliver the same stories quickly and in living color, and maybe even with the option audio video.
I spoke with two of my co-workers, Ally Garcia, 22, and Ian Wilson 19, to gain other perspectives on the subject. “There is something just…I don’t know… classic about actually reading a newspaper,” said Garcia in an overly excited response to my question. Garcia, whose father used to read the newspaper every morning, grew up seeing the newspaper in her home every morning. As a child she would try to impress her father by reading stories from the front page. “My dad would challenge me to read the paper, which consequentially made it fun for me… it was sort of a game to me which became a habit that just stuck,” she said.
Wilson, only three years younger than Garcia, has an entirely different perspective on the subject. “I can’t remember the last time I touched a newspaper, they’re pretty archaic,” he said. Wilson spoke about being deemed as less informed because of his unorthodox method of receiving his news. “I can’t stand the fact that some people think that because I am young and I don’t have a newspaper bundled in my hand, that I am not informed. I consider myself a fairly intelligent guy and I like to keep up with my current events just like I do with modern technology.” Wilson’s main point was much like mine -- it doesn’t matter how you receive the news, just as long as you do.
Just from the people that I spoke to it is obvious how opinions vary on the subject of the newspaper. Although some people may still read the conventional newspaper, the fact is undeniable that newspapers as a medium for receiving news is a dying practice. The news will most certainly always be here, the newspaper, though, may not.
By Glenn Burwell
In reading the article, “Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice,” I identified with the authors opinion of young people receiving their news in nontraditional ways, and that print news becoming less significant. It is my personal belief that newspapers are obsolete.
The traditional newspaper is much too cumbersome, the stories are hard to find, and the pictures are rarely in color. Receiving news from the Internet and is not only faster, but it is far more accessible. When I am on the go and I need to catch up on current events, I don’t want to hunt for a newspaper stand and pay to read one or two stories. It is unnecessary for one to go through such a hassle when a few clicks on a Blackberry or on any standard cell phone with internet access will deliver the same stories quickly and in living color, and maybe even with the option audio video.
I spoke with two of my co-workers, Ally Garcia, 22, and Ian Wilson 19, to gain other perspectives on the subject. “There is something just…I don’t know… classic about actually reading a newspaper,” said Garcia in an overly excited response to my question. Garcia, whose father used to read the newspaper every morning, grew up seeing the newspaper in her home every morning. As a child she would try to impress her father by reading stories from the front page. “My dad would challenge me to read the paper, which consequentially made it fun for me… it was sort of a game to me which became a habit that just stuck,” she said.
Wilson, only three years younger than Garcia, has an entirely different perspective on the subject. “I can’t remember the last time I touched a newspaper, they’re pretty archaic,” he said. Wilson spoke about being deemed as less informed because of his unorthodox method of receiving his news. “I can’t stand the fact that some people think that because I am young and I don’t have a newspaper bundled in my hand, that I am not informed. I consider myself a fairly intelligent guy and I like to keep up with my current events just like I do with modern technology.” Wilson’s main point was much like mine -- it doesn’t matter how you receive the news, just as long as you do.
Just from the people that I spoke to it is obvious how opinions vary on the subject of the newspaper. Although some people may still read the conventional newspaper, the fact is undeniable that newspapers as a medium for receiving news is a dying practice. The news will most certainly always be here, the newspaper, though, may not.
The Future Of Newspapers
The Newspaper: A New Entry To The Endangered Species List
By Jamie Cohen
Every month there is a newer and better iPod, and the old designs are history, completely dispensable to the loyal and devoted Apple customers. We have become a society that has fastened itself to the idea that we should never get comfortable with what we have, because new technology is always right around the corner. So, with the new electric cars and phones that can give you a live broadcast of the evening news, it’s amazing that newspapers in their old fashioned way have survived this long. It is clear though, that even tradition in its ways can become obsolete.
While news itself will never be obsolete, the way we get it is changing. Newspapers are available every morning, but what happens when news breaks at noon? Sure, there is always the television, but what if there’s no television in sight, that only leaves the radio, computer and your cell phone. These are things that give you the news right now. There’s no waiting, no need to even turn pages. The push of a button gives you what you want, when you want it.
Growing up, my parents always read the newspaper. I’ve never picked one up except to throw it away. I wondered if other people’s opinions my age matched my own. Neil Scibelli is a student at Marymount Manhattan College, and says he’s up to date with news in the world today, I was curious as to how he got the news.
“I get it online.”
I followed up by asking why he doesn’t open a newspaper.
“It’s not as convenient, if I have the Internet available to me why would I go out to get a newspaper when the computer will tell me the same amount of information if not more.”
With the news being available at every touch of a button, I couldn’t help but wonder-and ask; do you think that the news will one day become documentation that is only available to those who could afford a cell phone, computer and television? Because if this is how news is becoming more and more available, then those who can’t afford to buy the computer and cell phone technically can’t afford the news.
“Well then those are the people who can go get a quarter and buy a newspaper,” Scibelli said.
But what happens when the newspapers don’t exist, or let’s say they do, but with the internet having constant updates, what happens when today’s newspapers are yesterday’s news? Other people’s opinions are in the complete opposite direction, determined if not angry at the thought of newspapers disappearing. Sandra Goodman is a math teacher and Testing Coordinator at Frank Sinatra School of the Arts; she is a loyal consumer of The Daily News. I asked her where she gets her news. “Besides from a newspaper, the T.V., the radio or computer,” she said.
I asked the same question regarding news becoming unattainable to those who can’t afford the technology that is endangering the newspapers. “No, there will always be newspapers, so they can always find the news that way. There’s also word of mouth, it’s the largest form of finding out news, and the poor…will always know the news just as much as the rich,” Goodman said.
Why do you still read the newspaper if you get your news from the radio, computer and T.V.?
“I’ve always gotten the newspaper.”
It’s an interesting answer so I explain something to her. First I ask her age, she’s 42 (P.S. never ask a woman her age), I ask her how long she has been a consumer of The Daily News. At least 20 years. I tell her that that is 1,040 weeks and every week she spends four dollars on the newspaper (that includes the Sunday charge of one dollar). When I tell her that she could have a little over four thousand dollars within those 20 years, she makes no response, I get a smirk from her when I tell her that if you have access to the Internet, the news is free.
By Jamie Cohen
Every month there is a newer and better iPod, and the old designs are history, completely dispensable to the loyal and devoted Apple customers. We have become a society that has fastened itself to the idea that we should never get comfortable with what we have, because new technology is always right around the corner. So, with the new electric cars and phones that can give you a live broadcast of the evening news, it’s amazing that newspapers in their old fashioned way have survived this long. It is clear though, that even tradition in its ways can become obsolete.
While news itself will never be obsolete, the way we get it is changing. Newspapers are available every morning, but what happens when news breaks at noon? Sure, there is always the television, but what if there’s no television in sight, that only leaves the radio, computer and your cell phone. These are things that give you the news right now. There’s no waiting, no need to even turn pages. The push of a button gives you what you want, when you want it.
Growing up, my parents always read the newspaper. I’ve never picked one up except to throw it away. I wondered if other people’s opinions my age matched my own. Neil Scibelli is a student at Marymount Manhattan College, and says he’s up to date with news in the world today, I was curious as to how he got the news.
“I get it online.”
I followed up by asking why he doesn’t open a newspaper.
“It’s not as convenient, if I have the Internet available to me why would I go out to get a newspaper when the computer will tell me the same amount of information if not more.”
With the news being available at every touch of a button, I couldn’t help but wonder-and ask; do you think that the news will one day become documentation that is only available to those who could afford a cell phone, computer and television? Because if this is how news is becoming more and more available, then those who can’t afford to buy the computer and cell phone technically can’t afford the news.
“Well then those are the people who can go get a quarter and buy a newspaper,” Scibelli said.
But what happens when the newspapers don’t exist, or let’s say they do, but with the internet having constant updates, what happens when today’s newspapers are yesterday’s news? Other people’s opinions are in the complete opposite direction, determined if not angry at the thought of newspapers disappearing. Sandra Goodman is a math teacher and Testing Coordinator at Frank Sinatra School of the Arts; she is a loyal consumer of The Daily News. I asked her where she gets her news. “Besides from a newspaper, the T.V., the radio or computer,” she said.
I asked the same question regarding news becoming unattainable to those who can’t afford the technology that is endangering the newspapers. “No, there will always be newspapers, so they can always find the news that way. There’s also word of mouth, it’s the largest form of finding out news, and the poor…will always know the news just as much as the rich,” Goodman said.
Why do you still read the newspaper if you get your news from the radio, computer and T.V.?
“I’ve always gotten the newspaper.”
It’s an interesting answer so I explain something to her. First I ask her age, she’s 42 (P.S. never ask a woman her age), I ask her how long she has been a consumer of The Daily News. At least 20 years. I tell her that that is 1,040 weeks and every week she spends four dollars on the newspaper (that includes the Sunday charge of one dollar). When I tell her that she could have a little over four thousand dollars within those 20 years, she makes no response, I get a smirk from her when I tell her that if you have access to the Internet, the news is free.
The Future Of Newspapers
Constant Change
By Christine Levitin-Breyette
The era of newspapers will soon be extinct as the era of technology becomes more advanced. I rarely read the newspaper to find out the news of the day. The Internet is my main source of information for the latest and greatest news stories because the information changes constantly throughout the day.
As I recently found out, I am not the only college student who doesn’t read the papers for news. When asked if they read newspapers, three Marymount Manhattan College students answered simultaneously, “No.” It was only Steph Johnson, also an MMC student, who replied, “Sometimes I do.” Megan Cohl and Johnson both said that they regularly watch the news on television, Cohl adding, “I watch the morning news and when I get home, the evening news.” It was MMC student Cameron Burke who mentioned that the way he keeps up with the news is by word of mouth. Johnson also added that she gets her news from the AOL headlines.
Even people who work in the news industry realize that it is coming to an end. Over the summer I worked in my local television news station, WPTZ News, Channel 5 in Plattsburgh, NY, two days a week during the evening news and the late night news. I was amazed to see that stories that had been announced hours earlier were being reused on the evening news shows. I actually got into several discussions with a 20-year veteran of the industry who was all too aware of the fact that news programs are losing viewers.
One very big factor can be attributed to this sort of demise. Newspapers and news programs are losing their audience because of a lack of instant gratification. College students are too busy with classes, books, studying, social lives, and jobs to spend an hour or two each morning thumbing through the New York Times looking for that particular topic, or piece of news, that might be of interest to them. Instead, they can just jump online and “Google” it in the news section.
The world is changing at an accelerated speed and the only thing we can do is to change and adapt with it. I wonder if all of this change is really a good thing, though? For example, one of the first modes of transportation was horse drawn carriages and that has all changed and we now use automobiles, which are destroying our planet every second of the day. Another example is cassette tapes and VHS tape that everyone used to own to listen to music and watch videos. The tapes were in very durable cases that were basically indestructible. We now have CDs and DVDs that are completely ruined if you get a microscopic scratch on them. However, now they are coming out with eco-friendly cars, the “going green” campaign, and iPods to store your movies and music safely. So, even though change may not always be good, it is certainly a comfort when things seem bad.
By Christine Levitin-Breyette
The era of newspapers will soon be extinct as the era of technology becomes more advanced. I rarely read the newspaper to find out the news of the day. The Internet is my main source of information for the latest and greatest news stories because the information changes constantly throughout the day.
As I recently found out, I am not the only college student who doesn’t read the papers for news. When asked if they read newspapers, three Marymount Manhattan College students answered simultaneously, “No.” It was only Steph Johnson, also an MMC student, who replied, “Sometimes I do.” Megan Cohl and Johnson both said that they regularly watch the news on television, Cohl adding, “I watch the morning news and when I get home, the evening news.” It was MMC student Cameron Burke who mentioned that the way he keeps up with the news is by word of mouth. Johnson also added that she gets her news from the AOL headlines.
Even people who work in the news industry realize that it is coming to an end. Over the summer I worked in my local television news station, WPTZ News, Channel 5 in Plattsburgh, NY, two days a week during the evening news and the late night news. I was amazed to see that stories that had been announced hours earlier were being reused on the evening news shows. I actually got into several discussions with a 20-year veteran of the industry who was all too aware of the fact that news programs are losing viewers.
One very big factor can be attributed to this sort of demise. Newspapers and news programs are losing their audience because of a lack of instant gratification. College students are too busy with classes, books, studying, social lives, and jobs to spend an hour or two each morning thumbing through the New York Times looking for that particular topic, or piece of news, that might be of interest to them. Instead, they can just jump online and “Google” it in the news section.
The world is changing at an accelerated speed and the only thing we can do is to change and adapt with it. I wonder if all of this change is really a good thing, though? For example, one of the first modes of transportation was horse drawn carriages and that has all changed and we now use automobiles, which are destroying our planet every second of the day. Another example is cassette tapes and VHS tape that everyone used to own to listen to music and watch videos. The tapes were in very durable cases that were basically indestructible. We now have CDs and DVDs that are completely ruined if you get a microscopic scratch on them. However, now they are coming out with eco-friendly cars, the “going green” campaign, and iPods to store your movies and music safely. So, even though change may not always be good, it is certainly a comfort when things seem bad.
The Future Of Newspapers
Newspapers Are Struggling With Generational Changes
By Priya Joshi
Americans embraced the vast technological improvements that were shaping the future of our nation at the turn of the 20th Century. This industrial revolution sparked a century of growth and prosperity. But today, has technology begun to make people less in touch with their society rather than more informed?
The newspaper industry was the main source of information for millions of people for decades. These days, with the invention of television and Internet, it seems as though newspapers are becoming obsolete. Nineteen-year-old college student Elizabeth Monahan agrees. “It’s not that I am uninterested in current affairs, it’s just that it’s easier to watch the news rather than to read about it. I still stay well informed, I just do it differently than people who choose to buy the New York Times,” she said.
Monahan, having grown up with television and the Internet finds it natural that she rarely buys a newspaper. “I can either buy a paper, or hit a switch and have the news right in front of me. I don’t think it’s a terrible thing that newspapers are suffering due to television and the Internet. A new generation has been born and changes come around often. The world is constantly making progress and people need to deal with that,” she said.
Like Monahan, older generations also stick with what they know. “The news on television tends to be biased and often one sided”, says Linette Joshi, a 52-year-old mother of two. “I prefer the news paper because I feel as though I can rely on the stories to be factual. There have been so many controversies over news stations lying and presenting false facts to viewers. I don’t want to take that risk of being severely misinformed.”
Having two children of her own, Joshi disagrees with Monahan’s reasoning for not buying newspapers. Her view is a bit more cynical. "I feel as though the current generation of young adults have adapted a sense of apathy about global affairs. There’s a huge war going on and I think a lot of kids feel helpless. They’ve given up on being heard so reading or watching the news at all seems pointless,” says Joshi. “My kids would rather watch their favorite television show and laugh than sit down and watch what’s going on in Iraq. It’s a little disheartening, but I can’t blame them. They didn’t ask to grow up in a society of machines and warfare and violence. They want to feel young for as long as they can because they know the world is turning upside down.”
But what could the possible consequences be for a generation void of reading newspapers? “Many adults think that by not getting the news from newspapers my generation will become less literate,” says Monahan. “I disagree. Just because we aren’t reading the newspaper doesn’t mean that we aren’t still reading books or poetry or magazines.”
Would Monahan’s generation become less intelligent from not reading a newspaper every once in a while? I would say perhaps not. However, the issue of a generation becoming uninformed about the world they live in seems more plausible. Whether it is a case of convenience or apathy, the newspaper business is likely to greatly suffer if the current generation does not keep it alive.
By Priya Joshi
Americans embraced the vast technological improvements that were shaping the future of our nation at the turn of the 20th Century. This industrial revolution sparked a century of growth and prosperity. But today, has technology begun to make people less in touch with their society rather than more informed?
The newspaper industry was the main source of information for millions of people for decades. These days, with the invention of television and Internet, it seems as though newspapers are becoming obsolete. Nineteen-year-old college student Elizabeth Monahan agrees. “It’s not that I am uninterested in current affairs, it’s just that it’s easier to watch the news rather than to read about it. I still stay well informed, I just do it differently than people who choose to buy the New York Times,” she said.
Monahan, having grown up with television and the Internet finds it natural that she rarely buys a newspaper. “I can either buy a paper, or hit a switch and have the news right in front of me. I don’t think it’s a terrible thing that newspapers are suffering due to television and the Internet. A new generation has been born and changes come around often. The world is constantly making progress and people need to deal with that,” she said.
Like Monahan, older generations also stick with what they know. “The news on television tends to be biased and often one sided”, says Linette Joshi, a 52-year-old mother of two. “I prefer the news paper because I feel as though I can rely on the stories to be factual. There have been so many controversies over news stations lying and presenting false facts to viewers. I don’t want to take that risk of being severely misinformed.”
Having two children of her own, Joshi disagrees with Monahan’s reasoning for not buying newspapers. Her view is a bit more cynical. "I feel as though the current generation of young adults have adapted a sense of apathy about global affairs. There’s a huge war going on and I think a lot of kids feel helpless. They’ve given up on being heard so reading or watching the news at all seems pointless,” says Joshi. “My kids would rather watch their favorite television show and laugh than sit down and watch what’s going on in Iraq. It’s a little disheartening, but I can’t blame them. They didn’t ask to grow up in a society of machines and warfare and violence. They want to feel young for as long as they can because they know the world is turning upside down.”
But what could the possible consequences be for a generation void of reading newspapers? “Many adults think that by not getting the news from newspapers my generation will become less literate,” says Monahan. “I disagree. Just because we aren’t reading the newspaper doesn’t mean that we aren’t still reading books or poetry or magazines.”
Would Monahan’s generation become less intelligent from not reading a newspaper every once in a while? I would say perhaps not. However, the issue of a generation becoming uninformed about the world they live in seems more plausible. Whether it is a case of convenience or apathy, the newspaper business is likely to greatly suffer if the current generation does not keep it alive.
The Future Of Newspapers
News Media: Moving Into The Technological World
By Kelly Lafarga
A recent New York Times article, “Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice,” said that young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 don’t follow the news closely. It also states that only 16 percent of these young adults read the newspaper every day. The question here is not whether young adults aren’t interested in the news, the question is, are the media changing with the times and offering the news in outlets that the young adults are accustomed to?
The article, quoting a study titled “Young People And News” by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, sampled 1,800 Americans. The results were that most young adults don’t follow the news closely. This survey doesn’t sound like it even has much accuracy. In order for it to be a non-biased survey they should have chosen a larger sample. Close to 2,000 people are nowhere near enough. This gives a bigger chance of variability. This can hardly be used to represent the entire parameter, or population.
In a recent interview, 22 year-old Carly Lang said that she “is very much interested in what’s happening in the world, but doesn’t necessarily have the time to read the newspaper every morning.” She said she “spends a lot of her time traveling and using her mobile Internet device.” Perhaps she would keep up with current events if they were easily transmitted to her phone.
We are not as much of a reading society as we once were. Technology is constantly improving and making some forms of media obsolete. Is the newspaper on the way to becoming the next VCR or cassette tape? In many areas, technology is improving and people are moving with it at rapid speed. Why are newspapers taking the slow route in this fast growing cyber world?
Katie Berenson, 23, said, she “isn’t actually interested in watching or reading about the news.” This brings up a new question. Is this decrease in news interest by young adults because of the media in which it’s given or because of how it is actually given? This may seem confusing, but even how stories are written or delivered on the news will affect how young adults take it in. If it is delivered poorly young people won’t respond. Things are becoming a lot quicker in technology. Young adults have very little patience because of it. Sitting through an entire story may seem rather boring for them.
We can also look at this in another way. Because things are growing at such rapid speeds young people must keep up with them. Everyone must have the newest gadgets and newest clothes. Now more then ever consumerism is at a high level. Young adults are so focused on how to look good and how to stay fit that they pay little attention to other things around them, such as the news. Maybe this is to blame for the lack of interest in young adults.
The truth is to some extent, young people aren’t as interested in the news as they maybe once were. There are a lot of reasons why this is occurring. Is technology moving at such a rapid speed that young adults are becoming less patient for things? Is consumerism distracting young people from what’s really important? The answers to these questions aren’t as important as the actual solution to them. What is the news media going to do to create more of an interest for young adults? These young people are our future. Whether or not they take interest in the news is very important for our survival. The Times article states that “the future of news is going to be in the electronic media.” Hopefully, we can see some improvement and change in the near future, for this is a serious problem that must have a quick solution.
By Kelly Lafarga
A recent New York Times article, “Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice,” said that young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 don’t follow the news closely. It also states that only 16 percent of these young adults read the newspaper every day. The question here is not whether young adults aren’t interested in the news, the question is, are the media changing with the times and offering the news in outlets that the young adults are accustomed to?
The article, quoting a study titled “Young People And News” by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, sampled 1,800 Americans. The results were that most young adults don’t follow the news closely. This survey doesn’t sound like it even has much accuracy. In order for it to be a non-biased survey they should have chosen a larger sample. Close to 2,000 people are nowhere near enough. This gives a bigger chance of variability. This can hardly be used to represent the entire parameter, or population.
In a recent interview, 22 year-old Carly Lang said that she “is very much interested in what’s happening in the world, but doesn’t necessarily have the time to read the newspaper every morning.” She said she “spends a lot of her time traveling and using her mobile Internet device.” Perhaps she would keep up with current events if they were easily transmitted to her phone.
We are not as much of a reading society as we once were. Technology is constantly improving and making some forms of media obsolete. Is the newspaper on the way to becoming the next VCR or cassette tape? In many areas, technology is improving and people are moving with it at rapid speed. Why are newspapers taking the slow route in this fast growing cyber world?
Katie Berenson, 23, said, she “isn’t actually interested in watching or reading about the news.” This brings up a new question. Is this decrease in news interest by young adults because of the media in which it’s given or because of how it is actually given? This may seem confusing, but even how stories are written or delivered on the news will affect how young adults take it in. If it is delivered poorly young people won’t respond. Things are becoming a lot quicker in technology. Young adults have very little patience because of it. Sitting through an entire story may seem rather boring for them.
We can also look at this in another way. Because things are growing at such rapid speeds young people must keep up with them. Everyone must have the newest gadgets and newest clothes. Now more then ever consumerism is at a high level. Young adults are so focused on how to look good and how to stay fit that they pay little attention to other things around them, such as the news. Maybe this is to blame for the lack of interest in young adults.
The truth is to some extent, young people aren’t as interested in the news as they maybe once were. There are a lot of reasons why this is occurring. Is technology moving at such a rapid speed that young adults are becoming less patient for things? Is consumerism distracting young people from what’s really important? The answers to these questions aren’t as important as the actual solution to them. What is the news media going to do to create more of an interest for young adults? These young people are our future. Whether or not they take interest in the news is very important for our survival. The Times article states that “the future of news is going to be in the electronic media.” Hopefully, we can see some improvement and change in the near future, for this is a serious problem that must have a quick solution.
The Future Of Newspapers
Young News: Yes Or No?
By Gina Mobilio
In a country of young men and women focusing on media, pop culture, and gossip as their main source of news entertainment, it is hard to imagine the youth of our nation advancing their worldly knowledge with the political, social, economic, and environmental news reports that are available to them.
A report released by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard titled, “Young People and the News,” focused on the news viewing and reading habits of 1,800 Americans between the ages of 18 to 30, and older adults.
This study found that only 16 percent of the young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 read at least one newspaper daily, while only nine percent of teenagers read newspapers. When compared with the amount of people over the age of the 30 reading the news daily, there was a vast difference. The study found that 35 percent of all people over the age of 30 are actively reading newspapers.
“Unfortunately, that study seems about right,” Marymount Manhattan College student Shannon O’Brien said. “I’m 22 years-old and I know that I am lacking in reading my newspaper. I never know what’s going on,” she confesses with a nervous giggle.
“My friends and I read Perez Hilton’s website. Does that count as news?”
Perez Hilton’s celebrity gossip blog site generates 7 million hits a day, with an audience of mostly 18-30 year olds.
“I just can’t be bothered [with the newspaper.] If something terrible happened in the world, my mom would text message me about it. She reads the news. I just try to stick to lighter forms of reading. Life is too intense to read the news all the time,” O’ Brien said.
Barbara Gottesman, an 80 year-old retired real estate agent living in the Upper East Side, thought differently when asked about her newspaper consumption. “The news is what gets me through the day. I can’t walk well, so I can’t do a lot of things within this city or see a lot of advertising [around the city.] How am I going to know which show at the opera I want to see without reading the newspaper’s reviews,” she said.
As a faithful reader of the New York Times, Gottesman praised the Arts and Leisure Section of the Sunday editions, as well as the headlines. “You look in the paper, and poof, you know what’s going on in New York and the rest of the world. I don’t understand why people don’t understand that.”
By Gina Mobilio
In a country of young men and women focusing on media, pop culture, and gossip as their main source of news entertainment, it is hard to imagine the youth of our nation advancing their worldly knowledge with the political, social, economic, and environmental news reports that are available to them.
A report released by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard titled, “Young People and the News,” focused on the news viewing and reading habits of 1,800 Americans between the ages of 18 to 30, and older adults.
This study found that only 16 percent of the young adults between the ages of 18 and 30 read at least one newspaper daily, while only nine percent of teenagers read newspapers. When compared with the amount of people over the age of the 30 reading the news daily, there was a vast difference. The study found that 35 percent of all people over the age of 30 are actively reading newspapers.
“Unfortunately, that study seems about right,” Marymount Manhattan College student Shannon O’Brien said. “I’m 22 years-old and I know that I am lacking in reading my newspaper. I never know what’s going on,” she confesses with a nervous giggle.
“My friends and I read Perez Hilton’s website. Does that count as news?”
Perez Hilton’s celebrity gossip blog site generates 7 million hits a day, with an audience of mostly 18-30 year olds.
“I just can’t be bothered [with the newspaper.] If something terrible happened in the world, my mom would text message me about it. She reads the news. I just try to stick to lighter forms of reading. Life is too intense to read the news all the time,” O’ Brien said.
Barbara Gottesman, an 80 year-old retired real estate agent living in the Upper East Side, thought differently when asked about her newspaper consumption. “The news is what gets me through the day. I can’t walk well, so I can’t do a lot of things within this city or see a lot of advertising [around the city.] How am I going to know which show at the opera I want to see without reading the newspaper’s reviews,” she said.
As a faithful reader of the New York Times, Gottesman praised the Arts and Leisure Section of the Sunday editions, as well as the headlines. “You look in the paper, and poof, you know what’s going on in New York and the rest of the world. I don’t understand why people don’t understand that.”
Sunday, April 08, 2007
'60 Minutes' Interview With John & Elizabeth Edwards
Couric Steps Up To The Plate And Strikes Out With Viewers
By Matt Rasmussen
The recent ‘60 Minutes’ segment featuring presidential hopeful John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth has brought on a veritable tidal wave of controversy, and most of it does not have to do with the Interviewee.
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who has been chastised by critics due to her reputation for offering up notoriously easy questions is now catching flack for a hardball interview in which she suggested Edwards is putting his family second, and that the Edwardses appeared to be in denial.
While valid, Couric was disconcerting in her decision to often refer to the ever-mysterious group of “some people”, using it as a way to wedge in loaded questions without attempting to make herself look bad. At one point, Couric offered up, “some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition."” While this wasn’t an unwarranted question on it’s own, the hypothetical appearance of ‘some people’ comes off as irresponsible and cowardly.
In addition to an influx of complaints sent to the CBS website, other anchors are also taking aim at Couric. “I can’t believe most people watching that with children wouldn’t ask, ‘Why is Katie Couric passing judgment on these people?’ said Chuck Scarborough, on his MSNBC program “Scarborough Country” the day after the interview aired.
Commenters on popular Left-wing blog, “Talk Left” received the interview poorly, on the whole. One commenter, posting under the name “Jeralyn” said: “I was surprised at how negative she was. Everything from her repeatedly asking the same thing, to her stern expression. I was thinking she was trying to prove she can be a tough interviewer.” Another, under the handle “xyz” responded more extremely: “will someone please put Couric out of her, and my, misery?”
Despite harsh questioning, it’s more than apparent the Edwardses were ready for them. Edwards seemed poised and answered each question with a prepackaged and homogenized answer. Elizabeth, who showed just the slightest shred of emotion, didn’t have a particularly difficult time either.
Besides carefully choreographed answers, the fact that they appeared at all let the world know they were ready to be challenged for their decision to stay in the race. ‘60 Minutes’ executive producer, Jeff Fager surmises: “by agreeing to appear on “60 Minutes” so quickly after the diagnosis, John and Elizabeth Edwards were clearly eager to discuss the issues”.
Making a campaign stop in San Francisco, Edwards said he found the questions “tough, but they were fair.” Elizabeth Edwards called Couric to thank her for the interview.
While this interview and a press conference last week have gotten Edwards quite a bit of attention, he is not the only candidate dealing with health concerns. Former Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney discussed his wife, Ann’s fight against Multiple Sclerosis on “Larry King Live” this month. Rudy Giuliani makes it a point to talk to his bout with prostate cancer, and McCain of his battle with skin cancer.
By Matt Rasmussen
The recent ‘60 Minutes’ segment featuring presidential hopeful John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth has brought on a veritable tidal wave of controversy, and most of it does not have to do with the Interviewee.
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who has been chastised by critics due to her reputation for offering up notoriously easy questions is now catching flack for a hardball interview in which she suggested Edwards is putting his family second, and that the Edwardses appeared to be in denial.
While valid, Couric was disconcerting in her decision to often refer to the ever-mysterious group of “some people”, using it as a way to wedge in loaded questions without attempting to make herself look bad. At one point, Couric offered up, “some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition."” While this wasn’t an unwarranted question on it’s own, the hypothetical appearance of ‘some people’ comes off as irresponsible and cowardly.
In addition to an influx of complaints sent to the CBS website, other anchors are also taking aim at Couric. “I can’t believe most people watching that with children wouldn’t ask, ‘Why is Katie Couric passing judgment on these people?’ said Chuck Scarborough, on his MSNBC program “Scarborough Country” the day after the interview aired.
Commenters on popular Left-wing blog, “Talk Left” received the interview poorly, on the whole. One commenter, posting under the name “Jeralyn” said: “I was surprised at how negative she was. Everything from her repeatedly asking the same thing, to her stern expression. I was thinking she was trying to prove she can be a tough interviewer.” Another, under the handle “xyz” responded more extremely: “will someone please put Couric out of her, and my, misery?”
Despite harsh questioning, it’s more than apparent the Edwardses were ready for them. Edwards seemed poised and answered each question with a prepackaged and homogenized answer. Elizabeth, who showed just the slightest shred of emotion, didn’t have a particularly difficult time either.
Besides carefully choreographed answers, the fact that they appeared at all let the world know they were ready to be challenged for their decision to stay in the race. ‘60 Minutes’ executive producer, Jeff Fager surmises: “by agreeing to appear on “60 Minutes” so quickly after the diagnosis, John and Elizabeth Edwards were clearly eager to discuss the issues”.
Making a campaign stop in San Francisco, Edwards said he found the questions “tough, but they were fair.” Elizabeth Edwards called Couric to thank her for the interview.
While this interview and a press conference last week have gotten Edwards quite a bit of attention, he is not the only candidate dealing with health concerns. Former Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney discussed his wife, Ann’s fight against Multiple Sclerosis on “Larry King Live” this month. Rudy Giuliani makes it a point to talk to his bout with prostate cancer, and McCain of his battle with skin cancer.
Couric Is On Critics’ Hot Seat For ’60 Minutes’ Interview With Edwards
By Amanda Yazdi
Katie Couric is no stranger to tragedy. Neither are John and Elizabeth Edwards. In 1999 Couric’s husband, Jay Monahan, was diagnosed with colon cancer. Nine months later, he lost his battle with the disease, leaving Couric alone to raise their two young daughters. In 1996, John and Elizabeth Edwards lost their 16 year-old son in a freak car accident. Only eight years had passed when Elizabeth was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer, a disease with only a 20% survival rate over five years.
In a recent ’60 Minutes’ interview, Couric sat down with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards after he called a press conference to announce that his wife’s incurable form of cancer had returned, but that it would not take either of them off the campaign trail. Immediately following the interview, a virtual firestorm erupted in the blog-o-sphere besieging Couric with criticism for her so-called harsh and unsympathetic line of questioning.
What viewers seem to have forgotten is that this is not infotainment, or a morning news story, or an abbreviated two-minute evening news piece with a few good sound bytes. This is ‘60 Minutes’. The questions are notoriously hard-hitting. When the senior producers of television’s most respected news magazine sat down and thought about which correspondent was right for this interview, of course they chose someone who has devoted as much time to cancer detection and prevention as has Couric. Let’s also remember that she is the highest paid and highest profile correspondent on staff, and they want to put her to work earning those big bucks, and bringing in those ratings.
Since Couric took over the reigns at CBS Evening News as the first solo female anchor, she has received nothing but criticism, from the lack of color in her wardrobe to the lack of hard news in her broadcast. It appears this is just another opportunity to criticize this woman’s work. Which begs the question, would there have been such a backlash had this interview been conducted by Mike Wallace?
By Amanda Yazdi
Katie Couric is no stranger to tragedy. Neither are John and Elizabeth Edwards. In 1999 Couric’s husband, Jay Monahan, was diagnosed with colon cancer. Nine months later, he lost his battle with the disease, leaving Couric alone to raise their two young daughters. In 1996, John and Elizabeth Edwards lost their 16 year-old son in a freak car accident. Only eight years had passed when Elizabeth was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer, a disease with only a 20% survival rate over five years.
In a recent ’60 Minutes’ interview, Couric sat down with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards after he called a press conference to announce that his wife’s incurable form of cancer had returned, but that it would not take either of them off the campaign trail. Immediately following the interview, a virtual firestorm erupted in the blog-o-sphere besieging Couric with criticism for her so-called harsh and unsympathetic line of questioning.
What viewers seem to have forgotten is that this is not infotainment, or a morning news story, or an abbreviated two-minute evening news piece with a few good sound bytes. This is ‘60 Minutes’. The questions are notoriously hard-hitting. When the senior producers of television’s most respected news magazine sat down and thought about which correspondent was right for this interview, of course they chose someone who has devoted as much time to cancer detection and prevention as has Couric. Let’s also remember that she is the highest paid and highest profile correspondent on staff, and they want to put her to work earning those big bucks, and bringing in those ratings.
Since Couric took over the reigns at CBS Evening News as the first solo female anchor, she has received nothing but criticism, from the lack of color in her wardrobe to the lack of hard news in her broadcast. It appears this is just another opportunity to criticize this woman’s work. Which begs the question, would there have been such a backlash had this interview been conducted by Mike Wallace?
To “Some People” Couric Grills Edwards On The Campaign Trail
By Benjamin Peryer
Katie Couric’s interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards and wife Elizabeth, who has within the past couple of weeks discovered the return of cancer, has been criticized as been too harsh. To “some people”, an anonymous group Couric repeatedly cited in the interview, say she went too far with her stern demeanor and overly forthright questioning.
In a press conference in mid-March, the Edwardses announced that Elizabeth’s breast cancer has spread to her bones and is incurable with treatment that does not always prolong life. The Edwardses continued to say that the campaign trail to the White House would continue regardless of this news.
Following this press conference, the Edwardses have faced criticism that questions whether it is appropriate for this trail to continue. It has also been brought into question of whether Senator Edwards is using his wife’s ailment as a way to garner public attention.
The two had the opportunity to speak to the American people on March 25 in Couric’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview about these concerns. However, they were faced with a stern anchor asking hard questions. Remember, Katie the perky personality has left NBC’s morning show Today, and is now Katie Couric the anchor realm of CBS Evening news.
After giving John and Elizabeth Edwards a chance to repeat whatever positive statement they could conjure up from the press conference by asking if they were in denial, she says, “Some people watching this would say, ‘I would put my family first always, and my job second.’ And you’re doing the exact opposite. You’re putting your work first, and your family second.”
Senator Edwards’ well stated response was, “But this is not work…this is a service.”
Couric’s convenient group of “some people” provided the means for which she could base her question, but does it also provide a one-sided attack on the Edwardses that leaves us saying, “Katie,” sorry, “Couric 1, Edwards 0”? Or is it simply a question that a majority of Americans have thought? However scrutinized Couric is for this interview, she can at least be credited with getting the public a response for a common concern. Keep in mind; this was the point of conducting the interview.
A beautiful story this reads for Edwards’ campaign -- it was evident that this election was not something either of them are willing to sacrifice. It is clear that Edwards recognizes the message that would be conveyed by continuing his presidential bid. It is something that has come up, and of course, it is something that will be addressed now and throughout campaign. Whether Senator Edwards is capitalizing on it will be left up to “some people”.
Although there may be a need to further investigate this group called “some people”, Couric accomplished every aspect of the interview with a level of professionalism and poise. Let it be noted, this definitely was not Katie. She asked the questions the public wanted address, leaving little room for vagueness, and gave the Edwards an opportunity to respond and further confirm the strength of his campaign. Edwards got the last word saying, “If you asked me today whether I’m in this campaign for the duration, the question to that answer is ‘Yes.’”
By Benjamin Peryer
Katie Couric’s interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Senator John Edwards and wife Elizabeth, who has within the past couple of weeks discovered the return of cancer, has been criticized as been too harsh. To “some people”, an anonymous group Couric repeatedly cited in the interview, say she went too far with her stern demeanor and overly forthright questioning.
In a press conference in mid-March, the Edwardses announced that Elizabeth’s breast cancer has spread to her bones and is incurable with treatment that does not always prolong life. The Edwardses continued to say that the campaign trail to the White House would continue regardless of this news.
Following this press conference, the Edwardses have faced criticism that questions whether it is appropriate for this trail to continue. It has also been brought into question of whether Senator Edwards is using his wife’s ailment as a way to garner public attention.
The two had the opportunity to speak to the American people on March 25 in Couric’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview about these concerns. However, they were faced with a stern anchor asking hard questions. Remember, Katie the perky personality has left NBC’s morning show Today, and is now Katie Couric the anchor realm of CBS Evening news.
After giving John and Elizabeth Edwards a chance to repeat whatever positive statement they could conjure up from the press conference by asking if they were in denial, she says, “Some people watching this would say, ‘I would put my family first always, and my job second.’ And you’re doing the exact opposite. You’re putting your work first, and your family second.”
Senator Edwards’ well stated response was, “But this is not work…this is a service.”
Couric’s convenient group of “some people” provided the means for which she could base her question, but does it also provide a one-sided attack on the Edwardses that leaves us saying, “Katie,” sorry, “Couric 1, Edwards 0”? Or is it simply a question that a majority of Americans have thought? However scrutinized Couric is for this interview, she can at least be credited with getting the public a response for a common concern. Keep in mind; this was the point of conducting the interview.
A beautiful story this reads for Edwards’ campaign -- it was evident that this election was not something either of them are willing to sacrifice. It is clear that Edwards recognizes the message that would be conveyed by continuing his presidential bid. It is something that has come up, and of course, it is something that will be addressed now and throughout campaign. Whether Senator Edwards is capitalizing on it will be left up to “some people”.
Although there may be a need to further investigate this group called “some people”, Couric accomplished every aspect of the interview with a level of professionalism and poise. Let it be noted, this definitely was not Katie. She asked the questions the public wanted address, leaving little room for vagueness, and gave the Edwards an opportunity to respond and further confirm the strength of his campaign. Edwards got the last word saying, “If you asked me today whether I’m in this campaign for the duration, the question to that answer is ‘Yes.’”
Couric Misses The Ethical Bar In ’60 Minutes’ Interview
By Mark Moran
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric’s interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on ’60 Minutes’ began as an impartial human-interest story involving cancer, coping, and the question of work vs. family. But unexpectedly, Couric threw the Edwardses a curve ball when she insinuated that the presidential hopeful was choosing his campaign over his family. Obviously, this “question” was as loaded as a frat boy on spring break.
The Edwardses seemed unabashed by Couric’s biased comment and answered the supposed question as if she had asked what was their favorite ice cream flavor. In fact, as she spat out questions that became progressively more attacking, the Edwardses not only kept their composure, but also seemed more sincere. Unlike many politicians who skillfully dodge unflattering questions, the couple faced each harsh inquiry head on. The Edwards appeared to come out on top due to their heartfelt and articulate responses in the face of what some would say, were insults ending with a question mark.
Couric, who is best known for her light hearted news reporting on “The Today Show” showed her audience how cold she could be. Throughout the interview, Couric didn’t smile, nod to show a consideration of the Edwardses’ answers, or any of her hospitable body language that was often seen on “The Today Show.” By doing this, Couric exaggerated the warm and likable aspects of the Edwardses by being the exact opposite. The colder the questions became, the warmer the Edwardses’ answers appeared in contrast.
By the end of the segment, the interview seemed to have degenerated into a near no holds barred attack by Couric. At several points she overstepped the line between journalist and subject. When Couric brought the Edwardses’ two children into her line of questioning, the interview left the realm of journalism and became a debate over family values. This debate, however, did not seem to involve the clashing of the Edwardses’ and American public’s values, but rather, the Edwardses’ and Couric’s values.
Couric is an esteemed journalist whom many viewers respect. However, throughout this interview she started to resemble Geraldo Rivera more so than a CBS news anchor. The level of journalism that Couric has attained and its accompanying professionalism was not represented in this interview. When you are making seven figures to report the news the ethical bar is set high. Unfortunately, Couric couldn’t seem to reach it in this interview.
By Mark Moran
CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric’s interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on ’60 Minutes’ began as an impartial human-interest story involving cancer, coping, and the question of work vs. family. But unexpectedly, Couric threw the Edwardses a curve ball when she insinuated that the presidential hopeful was choosing his campaign over his family. Obviously, this “question” was as loaded as a frat boy on spring break.
The Edwardses seemed unabashed by Couric’s biased comment and answered the supposed question as if she had asked what was their favorite ice cream flavor. In fact, as she spat out questions that became progressively more attacking, the Edwardses not only kept their composure, but also seemed more sincere. Unlike many politicians who skillfully dodge unflattering questions, the couple faced each harsh inquiry head on. The Edwards appeared to come out on top due to their heartfelt and articulate responses in the face of what some would say, were insults ending with a question mark.
Couric, who is best known for her light hearted news reporting on “The Today Show” showed her audience how cold she could be. Throughout the interview, Couric didn’t smile, nod to show a consideration of the Edwardses’ answers, or any of her hospitable body language that was often seen on “The Today Show.” By doing this, Couric exaggerated the warm and likable aspects of the Edwardses by being the exact opposite. The colder the questions became, the warmer the Edwardses’ answers appeared in contrast.
By the end of the segment, the interview seemed to have degenerated into a near no holds barred attack by Couric. At several points she overstepped the line between journalist and subject. When Couric brought the Edwardses’ two children into her line of questioning, the interview left the realm of journalism and became a debate over family values. This debate, however, did not seem to involve the clashing of the Edwardses’ and American public’s values, but rather, the Edwardses’ and Couric’s values.
Couric is an esteemed journalist whom many viewers respect. However, throughout this interview she started to resemble Geraldo Rivera more so than a CBS news anchor. The level of journalism that Couric has attained and its accompanying professionalism was not represented in this interview. When you are making seven figures to report the news the ethical bar is set high. Unfortunately, Couric couldn’t seem to reach it in this interview.
The Edwards Presidential Campaign As Political Rollercoaster
By Laura Matteri
“Tell me about this rollercoaster,” were the words from CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s mouth as John and Elizabeth Edwards defended his presidential candidacy to America in a recent interview on ’60 Minutes’. Last week the couple announced the relapse and spreading of Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer, from breast cancer to bone cancer.
America is wondering whether this “rollercoaster” is taking the Edwardses for too much of a ride. Is it possible for the potential future President of the United States to handle the duties of politics in addition to tending to his fatally ill wife? Couric made sure to ask all of the questions that Americans are wondering.
Couric bluntly asked what Edwards thinks of the evaluations that are going through the press right now regarding his choice to continue running for president. He was thoughtful in his response, graciously accepting all aspects of the criticism.
Upon hearing Couric’s later accusation that “some” have said the Edwardses are capitalizing on the situation, Edwards, once again, cleared the air of any misconceptions regarding his motives in the campaign. He outwardly told America not to vote for him because of Elizabeth’s misfortune. He said that voting out of sympathy would be “an enormous mistake.”
In addition, Edwards gently pointed out that each candidate, Democratic or Republican, has their own lives. Americans have every right to speculate about each of them and decide for themselves whether they’re worthy of winning the campaign.
However, there are several other candidates who have issues that seem to be going against them. Hilary Rodham Clinton is the potential future first female president. Barack Obama is the potential future first black president. Couric said in the interview that “some people” feel that the diagnosis of Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer increases the media spotlight on Edwards’ presidential campaign.
Although the issue of his wife’s illness is an important part of his life, John and Elizabeth Edwards have decided that it is in the best interest of the country if he stays in the race. Edwards appeared in the interview to be a strong man to be up for the challenge of running the country as an incurable disease slowly takes his wife’s life.
If such a man is willing to put his personal life at the same level as his service to the country, it shows how dedicated he really is. Sensitivity is not a characteristic one seeks in a president, so if a man is capable of balancing a deteriorating home life and that of America, may the rollercoaster will zoom forward, full speed ahead.
By Laura Matteri
“Tell me about this rollercoaster,” were the words from CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s mouth as John and Elizabeth Edwards defended his presidential candidacy to America in a recent interview on ’60 Minutes’. Last week the couple announced the relapse and spreading of Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer, from breast cancer to bone cancer.
America is wondering whether this “rollercoaster” is taking the Edwardses for too much of a ride. Is it possible for the potential future President of the United States to handle the duties of politics in addition to tending to his fatally ill wife? Couric made sure to ask all of the questions that Americans are wondering.
Couric bluntly asked what Edwards thinks of the evaluations that are going through the press right now regarding his choice to continue running for president. He was thoughtful in his response, graciously accepting all aspects of the criticism.
Upon hearing Couric’s later accusation that “some” have said the Edwardses are capitalizing on the situation, Edwards, once again, cleared the air of any misconceptions regarding his motives in the campaign. He outwardly told America not to vote for him because of Elizabeth’s misfortune. He said that voting out of sympathy would be “an enormous mistake.”
In addition, Edwards gently pointed out that each candidate, Democratic or Republican, has their own lives. Americans have every right to speculate about each of them and decide for themselves whether they’re worthy of winning the campaign.
However, there are several other candidates who have issues that seem to be going against them. Hilary Rodham Clinton is the potential future first female president. Barack Obama is the potential future first black president. Couric said in the interview that “some people” feel that the diagnosis of Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer increases the media spotlight on Edwards’ presidential campaign.
Although the issue of his wife’s illness is an important part of his life, John and Elizabeth Edwards have decided that it is in the best interest of the country if he stays in the race. Edwards appeared in the interview to be a strong man to be up for the challenge of running the country as an incurable disease slowly takes his wife’s life.
If such a man is willing to put his personal life at the same level as his service to the country, it shows how dedicated he really is. Sensitivity is not a characteristic one seeks in a president, so if a man is capable of balancing a deteriorating home life and that of America, may the rollercoaster will zoom forward, full speed ahead.
Couric Interview Raised Doubts About Edwards’ Campaign Decision
By Julie Buntin
Anytime an interviewer is faced with discussing literally, a life and death situation, they will have a more difficult time. The questions Katie Couric posed to former Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth regarding her spreading cancer and his decision to continue as a presidential candidate were challenging not only for their bluntness, but because they handle issues every human being must face.
Couric’s interview has been criticized for being too harsh. The problem did not lie with the intensity of the questions—which were appropriate. Senator Edwards is running for the position of the Democratic Presidential Candidate and anything could potentially affect his leadership deserves to be scrutinized by the American people, no matter how personal, which Senator Edwards agrees with in the interview. What gave the interview a skewed, uncomfortable sense was a quality of deep personal involvement displayed by Couric, which gained momentum as the questions progressed.
While Couric’s personal history with a loved one’s cancer may make her more highly qualified to conduct such a survey, statements like, “…I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself, and do nothing. But, if given a finite – a possibly finite period of time on the planet – being on the campaign trail, away from my children, a lot of time, and sort of pursuing this goal, is not, necessarily, what I'd do…” passes a lot of judgment on the interviewees, whether or not that judgment is intentional.
No listener can come away from a statement like that and not notice the slight, indirect way Couric condemns John and Elizabeth Edwards. Other statements, like when Couric refers to the Edwards’s children as “baby birds,” in addition to questions about the Senator’s ability to remain an undistracted leader while his wife faces a terminal illness feel excessive and callous. Often it is like Couric is the greatest doubter of the situation and the decision made by Senator John Edwards and his wife.
By Julie Buntin
Anytime an interviewer is faced with discussing literally, a life and death situation, they will have a more difficult time. The questions Katie Couric posed to former Senator John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth regarding her spreading cancer and his decision to continue as a presidential candidate were challenging not only for their bluntness, but because they handle issues every human being must face.
Couric’s interview has been criticized for being too harsh. The problem did not lie with the intensity of the questions—which were appropriate. Senator Edwards is running for the position of the Democratic Presidential Candidate and anything could potentially affect his leadership deserves to be scrutinized by the American people, no matter how personal, which Senator Edwards agrees with in the interview. What gave the interview a skewed, uncomfortable sense was a quality of deep personal involvement displayed by Couric, which gained momentum as the questions progressed.
While Couric’s personal history with a loved one’s cancer may make her more highly qualified to conduct such a survey, statements like, “…I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself, and do nothing. But, if given a finite – a possibly finite period of time on the planet – being on the campaign trail, away from my children, a lot of time, and sort of pursuing this goal, is not, necessarily, what I'd do…” passes a lot of judgment on the interviewees, whether or not that judgment is intentional.
No listener can come away from a statement like that and not notice the slight, indirect way Couric condemns John and Elizabeth Edwards. Other statements, like when Couric refers to the Edwards’s children as “baby birds,” in addition to questions about the Senator’s ability to remain an undistracted leader while his wife faces a terminal illness feel excessive and callous. Often it is like Couric is the greatest doubter of the situation and the decision made by Senator John Edwards and his wife.
Couric And The Edwardses: Pluses And Minuses On Both Sides
By Leigh Baker
Katie Couric’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards was, overall, a well-conducted performance. There are critiques and feedback that can be given to both the interviewer and the interviewees that pronounce how well each party managed their opposing ends.
Katie Couric’s initial approach to the assignment was well handled. She simply asked Elizabeth Edwards how she was feeling. This is an important step because it establishes a level of comfort with the interviewee, which is especially imperative when dealing with matters such as cancer and death.
Next, her questions were relevant to the questions on the minds of many Americans, especially those who follow and support the Edwards campaign. How the Edwardses responded will be addressed later.
However, the way in which she asked these questions made the Edwardses look almost immoral with their decision to continue in the race for the democratic nomination. For example, Couric says, “Some people watching this would say, ‘I would put my family first always, and my job second.’ And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second.”
In wording her question like this, she has compared these two individuals to the American population, and has assumed that most people would act differently. Furthermore, she uses the phrase, “exact opposite,” which implies that they are on the opposing side of the American public. It’s true that morality tells us to put family first, but she is distinctly placing them on the opposite end of the spectrum when they may not see their decision in this light.
Contrastingly, the couch that the Edwardses occupied seemed an uncomfortable one. They were firm in their answers, but these responses seemed rehearsed. I suppose that it is natural for a politician to prepare for any and all questions that may arise, but it seemed slightly dishonest.
Next, many of their responses seemed very roundabout. Generic answers are stereotypically considered a politician’s forte, but by responding like this, they didn’t quite tackle the questions being asked of them. Also, answers like this make it tough to conduct a solid interview because one must distinguish each question to receive the level of specificity needed. In other words, the questions may seem redundant, when in fact, the responses are.
Finally, one of the larger issues in the interview was whether or not the family is in denial of the seriousness of Elizabeth Edwards’s illness, and whether or not this denial would abate at a later date, possibly when it is too late. The response given by Elizabeth Edwards began with a stutter and concluded with a statement of optimism. Edwards’s reply was one that implied strictly, “no, we are not in denial,” and continued with Elizabeth’s theme of optimism.
In some cases, this premise of “optimism and strength” that they speak of continually could be confused for denial. It is not clear whether they are actually rejecting the possible thought of death within their own minds, but both reactions were neither confirming nor refuting the idea.
The questions were asked, and the answers given, just as should be done in any interview, but both parties had errors and triumphs.
By Leigh Baker
Katie Couric’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards was, overall, a well-conducted performance. There are critiques and feedback that can be given to both the interviewer and the interviewees that pronounce how well each party managed their opposing ends.
Katie Couric’s initial approach to the assignment was well handled. She simply asked Elizabeth Edwards how she was feeling. This is an important step because it establishes a level of comfort with the interviewee, which is especially imperative when dealing with matters such as cancer and death.
Next, her questions were relevant to the questions on the minds of many Americans, especially those who follow and support the Edwards campaign. How the Edwardses responded will be addressed later.
However, the way in which she asked these questions made the Edwardses look almost immoral with their decision to continue in the race for the democratic nomination. For example, Couric says, “Some people watching this would say, ‘I would put my family first always, and my job second.’ And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second.”
In wording her question like this, she has compared these two individuals to the American population, and has assumed that most people would act differently. Furthermore, she uses the phrase, “exact opposite,” which implies that they are on the opposing side of the American public. It’s true that morality tells us to put family first, but she is distinctly placing them on the opposite end of the spectrum when they may not see their decision in this light.
Contrastingly, the couch that the Edwardses occupied seemed an uncomfortable one. They were firm in their answers, but these responses seemed rehearsed. I suppose that it is natural for a politician to prepare for any and all questions that may arise, but it seemed slightly dishonest.
Next, many of their responses seemed very roundabout. Generic answers are stereotypically considered a politician’s forte, but by responding like this, they didn’t quite tackle the questions being asked of them. Also, answers like this make it tough to conduct a solid interview because one must distinguish each question to receive the level of specificity needed. In other words, the questions may seem redundant, when in fact, the responses are.
Finally, one of the larger issues in the interview was whether or not the family is in denial of the seriousness of Elizabeth Edwards’s illness, and whether or not this denial would abate at a later date, possibly when it is too late. The response given by Elizabeth Edwards began with a stutter and concluded with a statement of optimism. Edwards’s reply was one that implied strictly, “no, we are not in denial,” and continued with Elizabeth’s theme of optimism.
In some cases, this premise of “optimism and strength” that they speak of continually could be confused for denial. It is not clear whether they are actually rejecting the possible thought of death within their own minds, but both reactions were neither confirming nor refuting the idea.
The questions were asked, and the answers given, just as should be done in any interview, but both parties had errors and triumphs.
Politics And The Art Of Professional Journalism
By Aimee La Fountain
John and Elizabeth Edwards announced in late March that despite the reoccurrence of Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer, Edwards would continue his presidential candidacy. This decision naturally garnered critiques from people in all areas of the political spectrum. It is the right of the American people to be informed on the candidates running for president, and an interview with the couple was the perfect forum for the American people to get such information. CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’ undertook this responsibility and recruited their network superstar Katie Couric to conduct the interview. However, the interview served as another in a series of weak attempts at journalism for CBS.
The first major error of this interview was the questions that were asked. The role of journalism is to ask questions that generate answers to enlighten audiences. Many of Couric’s questions, however, seemed used purely for their sensational value. For example, Couric asked Edwards “Weren’t you terrified you might lose your wife?” Such a question is unprofessional because everyone knows the answer before Edwards opens his mouth. Edwards’s response, which naturally began with “Of course”, further proves that. Furthermore, the question wasn’t insightful. Couric is bringing up a painful topic that serves no real benefit to audience members.
The second error was the way in which the questions were formulated. Couric began many of her questions with the s word, a word ever-dreaded by journalism instructors: some, such as, “some say” or “some people.” This is a cheap technique used as a means for Couric to ask any questions she pleases under the guise that it is what people are asking. Therefore, by using these expressions, Couric detracts from the validity of her questions. A key value in journalism is the use of sources and attribution to support what is being stated. If “some people” are indeed asking these questions, then Couric should employ the name of some such critic. After all, if there isn’t a demand for a particular question to be asked then there is no real point in asking it.
Third, CBS was unfair in choosing Katie Couric to conduct this interview. Journalism is supposed to be presented without bias and Couric, having publicly lost a husband to cancer, (even if she herself is unbiased), is clearly a biased figure on the issue. For example, it appears improper for Couric ask the question Edwards for staying on the campaign trail when she herself continued hosting The Today Show during her husband’s illness. The focus of the interview should have been on Edwardses, and using someone like Couric makes that focus nearly impossible to maintain.
The concept of an interview with the Edwardses after such a controversial announcement is both timely and appropriate. The fashion in which the interview was conducted, however, was not.
By Aimee La Fountain
John and Elizabeth Edwards announced in late March that despite the reoccurrence of Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer, Edwards would continue his presidential candidacy. This decision naturally garnered critiques from people in all areas of the political spectrum. It is the right of the American people to be informed on the candidates running for president, and an interview with the couple was the perfect forum for the American people to get such information. CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’ undertook this responsibility and recruited their network superstar Katie Couric to conduct the interview. However, the interview served as another in a series of weak attempts at journalism for CBS.
The first major error of this interview was the questions that were asked. The role of journalism is to ask questions that generate answers to enlighten audiences. Many of Couric’s questions, however, seemed used purely for their sensational value. For example, Couric asked Edwards “Weren’t you terrified you might lose your wife?” Such a question is unprofessional because everyone knows the answer before Edwards opens his mouth. Edwards’s response, which naturally began with “Of course”, further proves that. Furthermore, the question wasn’t insightful. Couric is bringing up a painful topic that serves no real benefit to audience members.
The second error was the way in which the questions were formulated. Couric began many of her questions with the s word, a word ever-dreaded by journalism instructors: some, such as, “some say” or “some people.” This is a cheap technique used as a means for Couric to ask any questions she pleases under the guise that it is what people are asking. Therefore, by using these expressions, Couric detracts from the validity of her questions. A key value in journalism is the use of sources and attribution to support what is being stated. If “some people” are indeed asking these questions, then Couric should employ the name of some such critic. After all, if there isn’t a demand for a particular question to be asked then there is no real point in asking it.
Third, CBS was unfair in choosing Katie Couric to conduct this interview. Journalism is supposed to be presented without bias and Couric, having publicly lost a husband to cancer, (even if she herself is unbiased), is clearly a biased figure on the issue. For example, it appears improper for Couric ask the question Edwards for staying on the campaign trail when she herself continued hosting The Today Show during her husband’s illness. The focus of the interview should have been on Edwardses, and using someone like Couric makes that focus nearly impossible to maintain.
The concept of an interview with the Edwardses after such a controversial announcement is both timely and appropriate. The fashion in which the interview was conducted, however, was not.
Couric’s ‘60 Minutes’ Interview With Edwards Was More Soft Journalism
By Parisa Esmaili
“There’s not a single person in America who should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. If you’re considering doing it, don’t do it. Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake. The vote for presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it,” Senator John Edwards told CBS’s Katie Couric in a recent ‘60 Minutes’ interview.
Twelve days ago, Senator Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, publicly announced they would continue their 2008 presidential campaign, regardless of Elizabeth Edwards now incurable cancer. Three years ago Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer, however, the family received news two weeks ago the cancer was back and now has spread to her bones.
While many husbands and wives argue over coming home late from the office, Couric, who has also had her public share of cancer, was now questioning the decision of why Senator Edwards and his wife have chosen to continue their campaign. Disputes of family value, work, and publicity have all come into question of the Edwards decision.
Edwards told Couric at the beginning of the interview, that, “the decision was made by the two of us, no one else, as it should be. And she said to me, ‘this is what I believe in. This is what we’re spending our lives doing. It’s where our heart and soul is. And we can not stop.’”
The ‘60 Minutes’ decision to have Couric conduct the interview, a 14-minute clip that aired, seemed more like a choice of empathy and soft-journalism. Couric has been under immense pressure for not delivering “hard-news” since her move to CBS. Reaction to that criticism can be seen in many of Couric’s questions, which were direct, but repetitive. However, Couric did exactly what America asked for -- getting answers to the domestic situation from the family of a presidential hopeful.
Senator Edwards’s media popularity had not really galvanized until his wife’s recurring cancer was made public. It is unfortunate that this is the most attention he has received since he announced he was running for the presidency.
By Parisa Esmaili
“There’s not a single person in America who should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. If you’re considering doing it, don’t do it. Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake. The vote for presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it,” Senator John Edwards told CBS’s Katie Couric in a recent ‘60 Minutes’ interview.
Twelve days ago, Senator Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, publicly announced they would continue their 2008 presidential campaign, regardless of Elizabeth Edwards now incurable cancer. Three years ago Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed and treated for breast cancer, however, the family received news two weeks ago the cancer was back and now has spread to her bones.
While many husbands and wives argue over coming home late from the office, Couric, who has also had her public share of cancer, was now questioning the decision of why Senator Edwards and his wife have chosen to continue their campaign. Disputes of family value, work, and publicity have all come into question of the Edwards decision.
Edwards told Couric at the beginning of the interview, that, “the decision was made by the two of us, no one else, as it should be. And she said to me, ‘this is what I believe in. This is what we’re spending our lives doing. It’s where our heart and soul is. And we can not stop.’”
The ‘60 Minutes’ decision to have Couric conduct the interview, a 14-minute clip that aired, seemed more like a choice of empathy and soft-journalism. Couric has been under immense pressure for not delivering “hard-news” since her move to CBS. Reaction to that criticism can be seen in many of Couric’s questions, which were direct, but repetitive. However, Couric did exactly what America asked for -- getting answers to the domestic situation from the family of a presidential hopeful.
Senator Edwards’s media popularity had not really galvanized until his wife’s recurring cancer was made public. It is unfortunate that this is the most attention he has received since he announced he was running for the presidency.
Controversy Accompanies Couric’s Interview With The Edwardses
By Lindsay Cooper
In Katie Couric’s '60 Minutes' interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards, she asked some loaded questions centering on how Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer would affect Edwards’ presidential campaign.
The interview seemed very well rehearsed as neither of the Edwardses stumbled or hesitated in their answers to Courics’ questions. The interview began with Couric, who appeared to express a somewhat concerned expression asking Elizabeth Edwards how she was doing. Elizabeth Edwards’ glittering blue eyes, rosy cheeks, and pseudo smile was evident as she answered Couric’s questions about her cancer in the most optimistic manner. Her husband similarly answered questions with an utmost positive aura, which seemed somewhat surreal.
As others have expressed, there was an ironic twist that subtly presented itself through the interview. John Edwards claimed he was greatly concerned with his wife’s illness but understood the responsibility of running for presidency, which meant focus and clarity when hard judgments have to be made. This discrepancy allows the viewer to see that the real question about his wife’s illness standing in the way of his campaign has not really been answered. It was also ironic that Couric’s face appeared to soften when interviewing the Edwardses, but she refrained from expressing heartfelt emotion and focused on objective questions that dealt with the public’s interest.
There did appear to be a progression throughout the interview in which Couric went from asking basic questions about Elizabeth Edwards’ health to more complex ones, such as questioning John Edwards’certainty in the presidential race if her condition worsened. However, the Edwardses responded to every question in a consistent and well thought-out manner. Couric, on the other hand, did appear to change the tone in which she asked her final questions, particularly in stating to John Edwards that the president at a dangerous time like this cannot be concerned with such distractions. It seemed as if there was another, perhaps more personal intention behind such a question.
By Lindsay Cooper
In Katie Couric’s '60 Minutes' interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards, she asked some loaded questions centering on how Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer would affect Edwards’ presidential campaign.
The interview seemed very well rehearsed as neither of the Edwardses stumbled or hesitated in their answers to Courics’ questions. The interview began with Couric, who appeared to express a somewhat concerned expression asking Elizabeth Edwards how she was doing. Elizabeth Edwards’ glittering blue eyes, rosy cheeks, and pseudo smile was evident as she answered Couric’s questions about her cancer in the most optimistic manner. Her husband similarly answered questions with an utmost positive aura, which seemed somewhat surreal.
As others have expressed, there was an ironic twist that subtly presented itself through the interview. John Edwards claimed he was greatly concerned with his wife’s illness but understood the responsibility of running for presidency, which meant focus and clarity when hard judgments have to be made. This discrepancy allows the viewer to see that the real question about his wife’s illness standing in the way of his campaign has not really been answered. It was also ironic that Couric’s face appeared to soften when interviewing the Edwardses, but she refrained from expressing heartfelt emotion and focused on objective questions that dealt with the public’s interest.
There did appear to be a progression throughout the interview in which Couric went from asking basic questions about Elizabeth Edwards’ health to more complex ones, such as questioning John Edwards’certainty in the presidential race if her condition worsened. However, the Edwardses responded to every question in a consistent and well thought-out manner. Couric, on the other hand, did appear to change the tone in which she asked her final questions, particularly in stating to John Edwards that the president at a dangerous time like this cannot be concerned with such distractions. It seemed as if there was another, perhaps more personal intention behind such a question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
