Shoddy journalism crafted to ridicule

CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl Prepped to Shame, Not Fairly Inform or Educate

Stahl’s interview with U.S. President Donald Trump (my view)

Lesley Stahl failed to properly prepare for the Sunday October 14, 2018, “Sixty Minutes” interview with the U.S. president (I have heard some of the rebroadcast clips on radio and skimmed the transcript).

Had Stahl and her assistants (researchers, producers, etc) been interested in something other than embarrassing or making the president look stupid, she would have prepared studiously:

• Anticipated the president’s answers on climate change and

• Had in her on-air notes (or memorized) the names of scientists, climate science organizations, and scholarly studies—scientific, legitimate, impartial peer-reviewed investigations, historical documents, and publications—on climate change (from Greenland to the plight of small islands and islanders), vast weather variations, cases, cause and effect.

S

tudies are out there and easily available, especially to a Sixty Minutes “correspondent!”

One of the main reasons that I don’t watch television, especially U.S. television, is that it is trashy, shallow, and littered with people performing personal attacks, one-upmanship, and ridicule.

Had Stahl been studied in her interview approach, had she been a respectful professional, she might have educated both the U.S. president and the U.S. public. What she did was to undermine any reasonable standard of good programming and fail to fairly inform the public. No doubt she considered her performance clever but to me she made herself look worse than the person she set out to shame.

Except from Stahl’s Climate Change segment with the President

S

tahl’s performance (italics added)

Lesley Stahl’s loaded question-marked declarative to President Trump: “Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?” 

The President’s responds: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax…”

Stahl counters: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.”

The President comments: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”

Lesley Stahl says: “Well, your scientists, your scientists”—

The President interrupts: “No, we have”—

 Lesley Stahl interrupts: “At NOAA and NASA”—

The President says: “We have scientists that disagree with that.”

Lesley Stahl chastises the president: “You know, I—I was thinking what if he said, ‘No, I’ve seen the hurricane situations, I’ve changed my mind. There really is climate change.’ And I thought, ‘Wow, what an impact.’”

The President repeats his earlier response: … “I’m not denying.”

Lesley Stahl, playing to her audience, continuing her chastisement: “What an impact that would make.”

The President again says: I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back.…

Lesley Stahl contradicts the president: “But that’s denying it.”

The President comments: “…They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.”

Lesley Stahl attacks: “Who says that? ‘They say’?”

The President responds: “People say. People say that in the—

Lesley Stahl interrupts: “Yeah, but what about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?”

The President responds: “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley.”

Lesley Stahl’s unpreparedness slips out: “I can’t bring them in.”

The President responds: “Look, scientists also have a political agenda.”

I

n the Climate Change segment, Stahl asks only three questions; and even these are more declaratory than interrogative, more her statement than her question to the interviewee.

A journalist may dislike a person and that is her or his personal affair. However, in a public forum a journalist must treat an interview subject or interviewee—whether a U.S. president or a toilet cleaner—with proper respect. 

The subject or interviewee deserves the best, most respectful professional demeanor of a journalist (print or broadcast journalist). Anything else demeans the profession, the journalist, the subject matter and subject; and does a disservice to the public.

T

he postscript on the CBS transcript page calls Lesley Stahl “One of America’s most recognized and experienced broadcast journalists” who “has been a 60 Minutes correspondent since 1991.”

It seems she has overstayed her tenure. And it is far past time for Leslie Stahl to leave the field of broadcast journalism.

Source Transcript 

CBS “Lesley Stahl speaks with President Trump about a wide range of topics in his first 60 Minutes interview since taking office” Correspondent Lesley Stahl Transcript date October 15, 2018 Producers Richard Bonin, Graham Messick and Ruth Streeter; Associate producers Ayesha Siddiqi, Kaylee Tully and Jack Weingart © 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-full-interview-60-minutes-transcript-lesley-stahl-2018-10-14/

Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights Reserved