COLUMNIST JONAH Goldberg questions Katie Couric's disapproval of the "jingoistic excesses" after 9/11.The excess he specifically refers to is saying "we" when referring to the United States.
Should the objective journalist refrain from saying we?
Goldberg points out this fact: "It's worth recalling that during World War II, civilian correspondent Walter Cronkite - whose anchor job Couric now holds - gladly wore a uniform, not just a pin, and subjected himself to military censors. He also used, I'm sure, the word we when referring to Americans."
Who is right? Katie Couric? Walter Cronkite? Jonah Goldberg?
Or is this just a petty squabble between liberals and conservatives?
4 comments:
None of you chickens wants to bad mouth America's sweetheart, Katie Couric?
- George (the instigating teacher)
Well, she is an American is she not? What is wrong with her acknowledging that she is part of a larger group than objective journalists? One can still say objective things in his/her report without letting their background interfere.
I don't think journalists should ever say "we," unless they are doing an editorial and presenting their own opinion. That kills the neutrality of the article and doesn't make me believe it. Journalists present information TO people and are therefore talking TO people, not for them.
And Katie Couric looks like a fool there.
She's more than welcome to involve herself in the American people. But she's not welcome using we as a way to tell us what we think.
She's a talking head.
She can't speak for me and she can't pretend to.
It doesn't seem that using something like we would be so terribly harmful but it is. It creates a reputation and a misleading notion to the rest of the world that we, in fact, agree with Katie Couric. And that's not necessarily true, of course.
Plus she makes it even more difficult to be taken seriously as a female journalist. So I really don't like her so I don't really know if my opinion should count because I already don't like her.
Post a Comment