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

[DaleCooper]

The fact that people are so shocked by Ginsburg's comments shows just how much the left has changed over a very short period of time. Liberals and most of the left did not used to be so vocally unpatriotic. There's a world of difference between "We love this country and want it to evolve past its flaws" and "The United States is and always has been a uniquely evil white supremacist, imperialist nation." The latter was not mainstream on the left side of the aisle until recently. It's no surprising to me that a woman who came of age during Truman's administration would be disturbed by disdain for the US anthem.

[Alben Barkley]

The fact that people are so shocked by Ginsburg's comments shows just how much the left has changed over a very short period of time. Liberals and most of the left did not used to be so vocally unpatriotic. There's a world of difference between "We love this country and want it to evolve past its flaws" and "The United States is and always has been a uniquely evil white supremacist, imperialist nation." The latter was not mainstream on the left side of the aisle until recently. It's no surprising to me that a woman who came of age during Truman's administration would be disturbed by disdain for the US anthem.

You got it backwards. "Liberals" have not changed at all. What's happened is that the far left (which openly hates liberals) has found more of a voice thanks to social media.

[brucejoel99]

Genuinely shocked by this from Ginsburg. I find it very surprising how bad her take was on the whole kneeling thing.

At least we can take solace in the fact that she undoubtedly would've still voted to permit kneeling during the National Anthem in the event that such a 1st Amendment case had ever managed to come before the Court during her tenure.

[Santander]

It would have been far more surprising if she sided with Colin "I suck at football and think voting is for losers, but I'm gonna try to make myself out to be a political martyr (and make a ton of money from Nike at the same time) with a ridiculous publicity stunt" Kaepernick.

Colin Kaepernick is the civil rights icon of his generation.

[Matty]

It would have been far more surprising if she sided with Colin "I suck at football and think voting is for losers, but I'm gonna try to make myself out to be a political martyr (and make a ton of money from Nike at the same time) with a ridiculous publicity stunt" Kaepernick.

Colin Kaepernick is the civil rights icon of his generation.

LOL

[OSR stands with Israel]

Genuinely shocked by this from Ginsburg. I find it very surprising how bad her take was on the whole kneeling thing.

Maybe people didnt like the fact he was disrespecting our nation

[OSR stands with Israel]

It would have been far more surprising if she sided with Colin "I suck at football and think voting is for losers, but I'm gonna try to make myself out to be a political martyr (and make a ton of money from Nike at the same time) with a ridiculous publicity stunt" Kaepernick.

Colin Kaepernick is the civil rights icon of his generation.

LMAO

[SWE]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

She is right, however, that this is why education is important.

[Big Abraham]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

[Figueira]

The fact that people are so shocked by Ginsburg's comments shows just how much the left has changed over a very short period of time. Liberals and most of the left did not used to be so vocally unpatriotic. There's a world of difference between "We love this country and want it to evolve past its flaws" and "The United States is and always has been a uniquely evil white supremacist, imperialist nation." The latter was not mainstream on the left side of the aisle until recently. It's no surprising to me that a woman who came of age during Truman's administration would be disturbed by disdain for the US anthem.

You got it backwards. "Liberals" have not changed at all. What's happened is that the far left (which openly hates liberals) has found more of a voice thanks to social media.

Protesting police brutality is very much in line with liberalism.

[Stuart98]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

[Big Abraham]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

She referred to their "parents and grandparents." Meaning the places that they came from in this case would be referring to the Segregated South. So yeah, I do think that black people today are better off now, in many or most instances, due to changes in government policy, and this really shouldn't be controversial.

[LBJer]

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 agree, but I don't think the fact that a "substantial proportion" of the population believes something makes the right to express it any stronger than it would have been otherwise.  There's just as much a right to express something 1% of people believe as there is to express something 99% of people believe. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

She referred to their "parents and grandparents." Meaning the places that they came from in this case would be referring to the Segregated South. So yeah, I do think that black people today are better off now, in many or most instances, due to changes in government policy, and this really shouldn't be controversial.

Amazing that so many on the left have interest in giving the GOP something of a challenge in the "who can deny basic reality more" department.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not think there's anything wrong with Ginburg's remarks regarding AAs here, and I disagree with her remarks about Kaeparnick, but I am understanding enough to recognize that liberals, especially those from different generations whose worldviews were formed in different times, can disagree on these issues. I feel I'd probably agree with her overall more than I would with some forumites anyway.
The Democratic party is a broad church.

[LBJer]

Ginsburg's biggest mistake wasn't this, but not resigning from the court while Obama was President. I think she honestly bought into the hype that people created around her and wanted to leave the court on her own terms rather than what was good for the country.

You can argue in hindsight that it was a mistake, but how many people thought that Donald Trump would ever become president?

[Stuart98]

Ginsburg's biggest mistake wasn't this, but not resigning from the court while Obama was President. I think she honestly bought into the hype that people created around her and wanted to leave the court on her own terms rather than what was good for the country.

You can argue in hindsight that it was a mistake, but how many people thought that Donald Trump would ever become president?

She should have retired in 2013. It was very obvious Democrats were going to lose the senate in 2014, and it was likely that whoever the D nominee was in 2016 was going to lose simply because a party rarely wins 3 terms in the white house in a row. Her decision to not retire when Obama would get to pick the replacement of his choice was always much more likely to backfire than it was to not.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

Perhaps, but she was always free to make these statements publicly if she felt strongly about it, or even to complain about the interview being published without including them. It's clear that Couric and others viewed themselves as protecting Ginsburg and her reputation, and perhaps Ginsburg ultimately agreed with the decision to leave it out even if she didn't request the editing.

[Figueira]

Ginsburg's biggest mistake wasn't this, but not resigning from the court while Obama was President. I think she honestly bought into the hype that people created around her and wanted to leave the court on her own terms rather than what was good for the country.

You can argue in hindsight that it was a mistake, but how many people thought that Donald Trump would ever become president?

It didn't have to be Trump. It could have been literally any Republican.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is why you shouldn't meet your heroes, or put people on pedestals in general.

[R.P. McM]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

She referred to their "parents and grandparents." Meaning the places that they came from in this case would be referring to the Segregated South. So yeah, I do think that black people today are better off now, in many or most instances, due to changes in government policy, and this really shouldn't be controversial.

That's a ridiculously charitable interpretation. You're arguing that Ginsburg is trashing the South — a part of the United States! — and praising the federal government for intervening after ~100 years of terrorism and oppression. How does that make any sense? Why should AA's admire the flag because parts of the country belatedly intervened in order to protect them from abuses perpetrated by another section of the country?

No, the obvious explanation is that Ginsburg was reiterating the racist trope that black folks should be grateful they aren't back in Africa. Turns out, the person most responsible for the imminent destruction of Roe v. Wade was not only a terrible SC justice, but also a racist.  

[Big Abraham]

It's one thing to oppose Colin Kaepernick's protest. That's bad and weird, but whatever. It's a little bit worse, however, to suggest that black people should be grateful we brought them here and that they aren't in Africa. There's no way to spin that in a way that isn't shockingly racist.

That is... not what she said.

"Black people lived a better life here than 'in the places that they came from'" is basically exactly what she said, and it's been a racist talking point used to justify present day racism against black people dating back all the way to the height of slavery. It's profoundly disappointing to me that she said it, and I think we'd all do well to be aware of the history of such arguments.

She referred to their "parents and grandparents." Meaning the places that they came from in this case would be referring to the Segregated South. So yeah, I do think that black people today are better off now, in many or most instances, due to changes in government policy, and this really shouldn't be controversial.

That's a ridiculously charitable interpretation. You're arguing that Ginsburg is trashing the South — a part of the United States! — and praising the federal government for intervening after ~100 years of terrorism and oppression. How does that make any sense? Why should AA's admire the flag because parts of the country belatedly intervened in order to protect them from abuses perpetrated by another section of the country?

No, the obvious explanation is that Ginsburg was reiterating the racist trope that black folks should be grateful they aren't back in Africa. Turns out, the person most responsible for the imminent destruction of Roe v. Wade was not only a terrible SC justice, but also a racist.  

Well if my interpretation is “ridiculously charitable,” yours is comically uncharitable by contrast. There’s really nothing to base the idea that Ginsburg – one of the most notoriously liberal Supreme Court justices of the past century – is saying “um akchually slavery was good because it saved those darkies from African savagery, they should be looking to their British colonial masters who expanded the slave-trade as their historical heroes!”

No, Ginsburg – who was a Brooklyn Jew – was obviously pretty steeped in, and profoundly influenced by, the liberal-intellectual tradition of jurisprudence developed in the Northern states over the course of the middle twentieth century which expanded the role of the federal government in safeguarding the rights of ethnic minorities. Her voting record alone proves this. Her reference to “parents and grandparents” – which you conveniently ignored in your response – is also a testament to this development in legal philosophy in cases like Brown, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act, etc., that constituted almost a complete 180 in terms of racial policy since the days of Jim Crow, which Kaepernick’s family would have been subject to.

Ginsburg, as a steward of the liberal Obama tradition and decidedly not a woke adherent of the “America is incorrigibly racist” theorem, tends to agree with the doctrine of the moral arc of history bending towards justice and that American values of egalitarianism, equality of opportunity, constitutional liberties etc., are worth upholding and which previous iterations of United States policy failed to secure. In a word, America fails at being “America” sometimes. The change in case law which did occur is therefore something worth celebrating, as it gave these ethnic minorities the ability to flourish in their native country and guaranteed them the rights which had been denied to them for so long. Therefore, for Kaepernick – or anyone – to “trash the flag” is a spit in the face to the federal government which had secured them these rights, despite massive opposition to doing so for many decades, and is a slap in the face to the struggle of all his compatriots to make it possible. Now, I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this point of view full stop, but Ginsburg was a woman in law in a time when women were expected to be nothing more than housewives, and a Jewess no less, so I’m sure she suffered from her fair share of anti-Semitic prejudice and/or discrimination on top of that, but at least she understood (and had respect for) the country and its values which, while imperfect, led her to be able to attain a seat in the highest Court of the land. Kaepernick, too, has been a recipient of the benisons of American democracy and prosperity, and he does in fact owe it to the American project for much of that. Every nation has had its fair share of troubles with inequality, and so when a historical wrong is righted and men are allowed to partake in the glory of this country, it is not to be taken lightly. And certainly Ginsburg did not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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".

[Fuzzy Bear]

Honestly kneeling during the national anthem isn't the best form of protest especially because they should be trying to persuade people, but it's not so bad that people shouldn't have a right to do it. Certainly, the issues raised by these kinds of protests need to be addressed.

You must really want to change the topic to protect the MSM lackeys who advance your favored issue positions.  This thread isn't about the Constitutional Rights of the NFL Kneelers to do their thing; it's about a so-called journalist being a Fangirl of RBG to the point where she deliberately edits out a comment she, RBG, made of her own free will and after considerable thought.  Why would you not wish for THAT discussion to go forward?

One reason, of course, is that Couric's behavior will be seen not as an aberration, but as standard operating procedures for media figures such as her.  What else is edited out from MSM journalistic "product"?  This was a NEWS interview, was it not?  Was this not a different context than an interview with TMZ or Entertainment Tonight? 

Ginsburg's comments on the issue were actually quite reasonable.  Katie Couric decided that America didn't deserve to listen to reasonable comments on this issue from an iconic figure in the field of Law and Justice.  Isn't that a basic integrity issue?  Her network tolerated this editing; what does that say about the integrity of her network?

This is one example of why I have come to view skeptically all news reports that come through the MSM.  They present edited product as the whole truth, and their editing is done for the specific benefit of the subject being interviewed (in this case).  How much is edited out of both the product where the subject is people they support?  Even more so, how much is edited out of the product where subject is a person they oppose.

[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.