Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

So Cokie Roberts, Why Do They Pay You?

avatar

During the April 20, 2008 "This Week" roundtable after McCain, Cokie Roberts said : "people don't choose presidents from their policies. people choose presidents from a gut check - because they like them as people.'

So why, Cokie, do we bother having "journalists" and "reporters?" Should they be reclassified? Or should we just accept that now they are only sensationalistic gossip columnists with perky high maintenance hair and move on. Ms. Roberts, evidently just an entertainer, turns out to work for something closer to feature page fluff writers, by her standard. Are we happy with anyone yet?

Sounds like Stephanopoulos isn't the only problem at ABC News.


Comments (27)

avatar

The fact that she is a commentator on NPR is even more galling. Between her and Fox's Elliason I won't support or listen to them anymore.

avatar

She's the worst of the worst, but since she started her semi-retirement she get eclipsed by Broder and Russert.

The most atrocious piece of political commentary I ever saw was during the 2000 campaign when she and Sam Donaldson did a wannabe-humorous look at Al Gore talking about Dingell-Norwood healthcare bill in one of the debates. The blatant subtext was "Oh that Al Gore! thinking the rubes in flyoverland can understand policy!"

Cokehead Roberts is a shill and she does what she's paid to do, waste time. The MSM has long been full of disgusting hacks with no ethics or real analysis. In the weeks after 9-11 the News Hour with Jim Lehrer underwent a dramatic overhaul towards the right and that's when I felt fully immersed in a Orwell novel.

avatar

Look at who they surrounded rattled wee George with, to day.

George was afraid to bring on any commentators, such as Donna Brazile, that might actually take issue with George patting himself on the back for what a wonderful job he did handling the debate.

ABC trotted out three Old White Elite Washington Power Nipple Suckers, to cocoon poor Wee George from what he calls,”it comes with the territory. Really, Chicken Shit George; Then why did you surround yourself today with only your long term fellow travelers?

One of the most amazing feats of logical Jiu-Jitsu was voiced by Sam Donaldson:
Right after the panel was told that the polls show that a far greater percentage of Hillary supporters say they will not supporter Senator Obama if he is the nominee, than Obama supporters saying they will not support Hillary;

Donaldson said that he was amazed at the sense of entitlement among the Obama supporters, and how they say they will not support Hillary if she is the nominee.
He then told the Obama supporters: “grow up”.

Why is that illogical old clown allowed to pollute the airwaves.

More Hillary supporters say they will abandon the party in the fall, than Obama supporters say they will, and Donaldson tells the Obama supporters to “grow up”

This morning you saw Wee Quivering Georgy, cowering inside the Old White Establishment Cocoon of Will, Donaldson, and Texas Compound Hairdo Roberts, because Mr. “ask the tough questions” Stephanopoulos was too afraid to face the music.

Boycott ABC. For years their radio network has carried all the right wing ranters such as The Big Fat Pillbilly and Raw Insanity, with no Progressive voices on their airways. All their local programs are also staffed with Neo-Fascist bufoons.

Boycott ABC and all those who advertise with them.

They will always be able to get away with this stuff as long as it's under the heading of "opinion." That's how Lou Dobbs gets away with his rants.

avatar

"Why is that illogical old clown allowed to pollute the airwaves."

What's really sad is that he's the closest to being on "our side" of all the available talking heads that routinely appear on that show. Cokie criticizes Democrats more in sorrow than in anger, and George criticizes Dems out of anger that they would dare harm ordinary working Americans by raising the tax rate on capital gains. That is when the bespectacled, bowtied, political-philosophy-spouting fop isn't claiming that they are elitist.

avatar

She is there because the media are owned by rich Republicans!

But...but I love "Lost". I can't boycott that.

Born Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs[2], Roberts graduated from the Stone Ridge School outside Washington, D.C. in 1960[3] and then Wellesley College in 1964[4] where she received a BA in Political Science. She is the daughter of former Ambassador and Representative Lindy Boggs and Hale Boggs, a long-time Democratic Congressman from Louisiana who was Majority Leader until his presumed death in 1972 after the aircraft he was flying in disappeared without a trace over Alaska. Her sister, the late Barbara Boggs Sigmund, was mayor of Princeton, New Jersey and a candidate for U.S. Senate from New Jersey. Her brother Tommy Boggs is a Washington, D.C. attorney and lobbyist. She has been married to Steven V. Roberts since 1966, and they reside in Bethesda, Maryland. She and her husband have two children, and six grandchildren. Her daughter, Rebecca Roberts, also serves as an NPR correspondent and sometimes hosts Talk of the Nation and Weekend America.

What can we learn?

Well, anyone with that many names would be called "elitist" by some people if they could use it for their political purposes.

She was born into power and remained there -- note high profile of her siblings.

Her father served in the South -- in a state boarding Arkansas.

She went to Wellesley just ahead of Hillary.

Think she might feel a kinship with one of the candidates?

avatar

"The Cokie Watch" By James Warren Deputy Managing Editor of the Chicago Tribune.

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/bullpen/james_warren/backgrounder/


His number one target however, was Cokie Roberts, an ABC News commentator and senior news analyst for NPR. Dubbing her as “a doyenne of Washington’s mediatocracy,” Warren chronicled Robert’s speechifying in his regular column, “Cokie Watch.”

“Cokie Roberts […] who in Washington is as close to social media aristocracy as one gets and also queen of the moonlighters, took twenty thousand dollars form one health-care association right smack in the middle of the very health-care debate she was covering as the network’s congressional reporter,” he wrote in one installment.

Hmm.. that's odd. There's another Wellesley girl that I can think of who also likes a little of that healthcare cheese.

There's nothing mousy about their appetites!

avatar

I love my Cokie, and her new book is smart. BUT, you're right, and her only answer can be that talking heads are supposed to tell us what to feel in our gut.

On another note, I don't blame TV journalists and an analysts. They are desperate for ratings and policy debate doesn't sell advertising.

So basically, it's okay to treat them as retail sales people then and not the 4th estate?

Okay, maybe "retail sales people" was a bit harsh.

How about game show hosts?

avatar

Back in the day when Cokie just worked for NPR, she reported on Congress and Washington goings-on. Because she was the daughter of the legendary Senator Hale Boggs and had spent all of her life at the highest levels of that society, she was very good at it.

When she moved to ABC, they wanted her to report on "The American People" a group completely foreign to her and far outside of her background and experience. That's why she is so clueless, we are a complete mystery to her.

She should go back to reporting on Congress. Its a world she knows.

avatar

Yeah, I experienced a moment of horror, and a flash of a vision of the 8 years to come, when, in a roundtable discussion in 2000, the pundits were talking about whether or not Bush was just plain too stupid to be president, and Cokie Roberts said "Oh, come on, I think he's CHARMING."

And I thought. Has that become the determining characteristic? CHARMING, for hellsakes?!

Totally lost respect for her at that moment.

avatar

I don't believe Cokie attempts analysis at all. She in a pure propagandist, forever passing off her own version of how things should be as explanations about how things actually are. She frequently employs toxic but really clever little techniques to get this end.

The trouble is, she is very good at presenting her own limited and very conservative and Catholic points of view as though they were the common sense outlooks of just about all right thinking people, which they surely are not.

Consequently, her observations, as reportage, are badly flawed. As a critic of public policy she is a shallow thinker. But, as a tongue- clucking propagandist, in that she is world class.

But most annoying, is the fact that her work is presented to us as astute political analysis.

avatar

I don't believe Cokie really aims for analysis.
She is a pure propagandist, forever passing off her own version of how things should be as explanations about how things actually are. She frequently employs toxic but really clever little techniques to get away with this.

The trouble is, she is very good at presenting her own limited and very conservative and Catholic points of view as though they were the common sense outlooks of just about all right thinking people, which they surely are not.

Consequently, her observations, as reportage, are badly flawed. As a critic of public policy she is a shallow thinker. But, as a tongue- clucking propagandist she is world class.

But most annoying, is the fact that her work is presented to us as astute political analysis.



avatar

Cokie just needs a little remedial training. First, she should be assigned to do a story on waterboarding, and "immerse" herself in the investigation by undergoing simulated waterboarding session. Then, she should spend a night alone in a high-crime area of her beloved Washington, DC. Finally, she should spend a week embedded with a family of Mexican migrant workers during a harvest, sharing in the work and the living conditions. Then bring her back on the air. That'll wipe the smug smile off her face.

ABC Lies continue:

One of the panelist George Will said Obama can't win stating how Obama wants to raise taxes on people who earn more than over $100,000 a year. Taxes on "a Chicago cop and Chicago teacher."

What?

Some fact checking.

Police officers earn: medium is about $45,780 per yeare.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_police_officer_earn

Medium earned wages for grade school teachers (K-12) $39,810 to $44,340
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_teacher_earn

For colleges tenured faculty earnings is about $100,000. So here it is tenured faculty will be taxed, which is still prodominately the male club, as women are a minority in this realm.

I don't much agree with Will on a lot of things, nor do I agree with his point this time, but he was actually correct on the facts.

After One year on their jobs, a Chicago Cop and a Chicago Teacher, will together - earn more tha 100K

These facts are from the websites for the actual employing organizations.

Chicago Teachers
Depending on degree held, a starting teacher in Chicago city schools earns at least $46,700


>The Chicago Cops
Starting Salary of $43,104, increased to $55,723 after one year and an additional increase to $58,896 after 18 months. (does not include 1800 for uniform allowance)

Just thought youds like to know. Both teachers and cops tend to get paid more in larger metro areas for a variety of reasons, some more obvious than others.

Chicago Cops

You mean their combined income will be above $100K, right? Surely you don't think Chicago is handing out 100% raises after a year.... Either way, you have to keep your eye on the ball with this one: The debate question was about combined income of $200K +, i.e. individual income of $100K.

I was surprised that Barack didn't call that for what it was. It would've been easy enough to look directly into the camera and say: If you're watching this and your family makes a combined income of $200K or more, Charlie is worried about me raising your taxes. If you're watching this and your family doesn't make that much, don't worry about it. He doesn't care about you. But I do.

Believe it or not, I used to be a Cokie fan, until she started being a shrill for the Right.

As a former journalist, this much I can tell you - we all bring baggage to the table (or microphone, or laptop). A good journalist does two things so that your reader/listener/viewer can decide on their own whether they can trust you -

1. Let others know what baggage you carry may appear to skew your coverage. When was the last time Cokie said anything about both her and Hillary going to Wellesley?

2. And even if we find ourselves in a situation where that mental baggage might intrude, we are under an obligation to subvert those feelings to report the facts as straight as possible. Good journalists, irregardless of medium, spend a lot of time and thought on that process.

For instance, in 2003 I was covering pro-war rallies around York County, PA. My own personal feelings at the time - and they have unfortunately proved correct since then - was I was horrified that no one - reporters nor citizens - was asking for any kind of proof on the supposed WMDs, and just anxious to follow the Government's rot about mushroom clouds, Saddam being linked to 9/11, etc. However, my job at the time was to show how rah-rah citizens were, not to question the leadership. That was the role of the reporters in Washington. That wasn't my role, especially as a stringer. So I subverted my feelings about the conflict so I could report on what was going on at the local level.

When the protests against the war rose, it was my role to report on that, again irregardless of my feelings.

It's a shame that those journalists who earn 50-100 times what I did can't bother to do that.

avatar

The entire round table at ABC This Week is garbage.

It should be renamed the "GOP talking point ditto club". They go round and round, agreeing with each other on rightwing angles of attack.

avatar

Russert, Cokie, Matthews, et al, attend the same churches, parties, graduations, weddings, christenings, vacation spots, etc. They have not been in touch with the working class for years. These overpaid dupes are quite comfortable reinforcing one another's views and like nothing more than rubbing elbows with the elites and powerbrokers. Does anyone seriously think for a moment that they want to upset the applecart? They have never had to worry their overstuffed heads about healthcare, gas prices,tuition, food prices, or pension funds. These are the same people who attended that dinner where Bush was looking under his desk for the WMD and they laughed along with him. Of course they will support the right wing agenda. Their portfolios and investments are getting thicker.

What exactly are you objecting to? She's entirely correct. There's a thinnish political class who follow policy, and everyone else votes either their instinct or for the party their father voted for.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address