Katie Couric admits editing 2016 RBG interview to remove comments critical of anthem kneeling

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The right is acting like Ginsburg is a victim of political correctness here, but I think this is more an example of the media sanitizing things to protect a supposed liberal saint who made illiberal remarks.

That doesn't make it any better. Ginsburg is entitled to her view on the anthem protests and is entitled to express it, especially since it's one held by a substantial proportion of the population, according to this a majority at the time, even if liberals don't like it.

I didn't say it makes it any better. I said that I think it's bad for a different reason than the right does.

Ginsburg is entitled to her opinion, but we're also entitled to know her opinion and form our own opinions on her based on it.

Fair enough, that's reasonable. However, I think there may have been a truly ulterior motive for Couric, she may have feared that having Ginsburg's view in the public domain could have swayed people against the anthem protests, so she covered it up to try to manipulate public opinion.

I suppose that's possible. It still doesn't make Ginsburg look good though unless you also oppose the anthem protests.

It's not the job of Katie Couric to make RBG "look good".

I didn't say it was? I've been critical of Couric throughout this thread. I don't know why everyone keeps interpreting all my posts as defending her.

I was responding to Pericles's attempt to make the thread about something else before the fundamental issue of MSM "journalists" such as Couric deliberately edit material to protect their politically favored interview subjects.

[Figueira]

The right is acting like Ginsburg is a victim of political correctness here, but I think this is more an example of the media sanitizing things to protect a supposed liberal saint who made illiberal remarks.

That doesn't make it any better. Ginsburg is entitled to her view on the anthem protests and is entitled to express it, especially since it's one held by a substantial proportion of the population, according to this a majority at the time, even if liberals don't like it.

I didn't say it makes it any better. I said that I think it's bad for a different reason than the right does.

Ginsburg is entitled to her opinion, but we're also entitled to know her opinion and form our own opinions on her based on it.

Fair enough, that's reasonable. However, I think there may have been a truly ulterior motive for Couric, she may have feared that having Ginsburg's view in the public domain could have swayed people against the anthem protests, so she covered it up to try to manipulate public opinion.

I suppose that's possible. It still doesn't make Ginsburg look good though unless you also oppose the anthem protests.

It's not the job of Katie Couric to make RBG "look good".

I didn't say it was? I've been critical of Couric throughout this thread. I don't know why everyone keeps interpreting all my posts as defending her.

I was responding to Pericles's attempt to make the thread about something else before the fundamental issue of MSM "journalists" such as Couric deliberately edit material to protect their politically favored interview subjects.

Why did you quote my post then?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

Well put.

[Torie]

So why did Couric now cop to this act of unethical journalistic fraud?

[Figueira]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

I don't understand all of this post. What is "pure Schmitt" and who is being antihistorical here?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

Well put.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This absurdity is quite telling really. Ginsburg was very much a New Deal Liberal, the last of them to fill a prominent public position, and so had certain views about the nature of America and the majesty of the Republic that are not fashionable amongst today's American Liberals (including the ones who call themselves Socialists to be edgy). This often showed up in her work: she was not particularly sympathetic towards Native claims about sovereignty and land-use, for instance. But contemporary American political and social discourse is characterised above all else by two things: firstly, an 'us and them' attitude that is almost pure Schmitt in character and which is routinely applied not just to people directly but also to issues, and a relentless ahistorical, no, antihistorical, approach to all things; the dogmatic insistence on a perpetual present.

I don't understand all of this post. What is "pure Schmitt" and who is being antihistorical here?

I was baffled at first too
It makes a lot of sense when you think about it deep down from the right place anyway.