PBS Shines, CNN stumbles in Sotomayor hearings
In my run-up to the Senate Judiciary hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I singled out PBS and CNN, the two TV sites most committed to fact based news and information, as places to turn for TV coverage.
By the end of the morning session, a clear pattern ion the coverage had emerged: PBS was doing an outstanding job, while CNN was offering some of the worst and most distracting coverage anywhere on TV or online. Talk about overproduced and misguided as to where the focus should be, CNN seemed to think its talking-head analysts mattered more than what was happening in the Senate hearing room.
CNN cut away from the opening statements in the hearing room for talk among its experts more than any other news channel -- and when they weren'tcutting away for what was frankly not a very illuminating discourse, there were the commercials. I am glad to see any news outlet make money these days, but if you have to break for commercials, don't keep breaking back to the news set for talking-head chatter during what should be your coverage of the event. (Pictured Judy Woodruff)
Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Jeff Session (R-Alabama) had barely finished their excellent opening remarks, when CNN cut back to the studio for analysis. Leahy and Sessions had deftly laid out the differences between the two camps, and they were huge -- both legally and culturally. The key was the standard of "empathy" articulated by Judge Sotomayer and President Barack Obama.
But instead of hearing the opening statement of Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), CNN viewers saw anchor Wolf Blitzer hand the discussion over to Democratic consultant Maria Echaveste who practically jumped out of her seat to attack Sessions for saying that what Judge Sotomayer calls empathy, he calls "prejudice." And, again, I have to tell you Echaveste was all heat and no light -- attitude without insight, a steady stream of partisan talking points. And she got more face time than some of the senators in the early going Monday.
In fairness, MSNBC and Fox were also cutting away for expert analysis and commercials, but each seemed far less stop-and-start, herky-jerky than CNN, which was away for a commercial when the first of two protesters was escorted out of the hearing room by guards. And CNN was also missing from the hearing room when Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) explored the role of the Supreme Court in trying to reverse racism in post-World-War-II Baltimore in his opening remarks. Thank godness, I had PBS on another channel so I could hear Cardin.
I liked seeing the heavy thunder of Karl Rove on Fox, Chris Mathews on MSNBC and Jeffrey Toobin on CNN. I was intrigued by Rove's pre-hearing analysis, But once the hearings began, the cable channels should have all pulled back and let the process in the hearing room be the star. And CNN was the worst in this regard.
PBS, meanwhile, got out of the way, and let the cameras stay on the Senate hearing room, so that viewers wouldn't miss a word. PBS has its priorities right. It's about Sotomayer and the hearings, not partisan consultants brought onto the set to talk over the coverage and try to score points with the people they work for -- instead of bringing insight to the citizen-viewers.
PBS has an excellent location for its coverage with a booth overlooking the hearing room for anchorwoman Judy Woodruff, of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and analyst, Marcia Coyle, of the National Law Journal. But instead of shooting the events in the room in such a way as to constantly remind us of how close Woodruff and Coyle are to the event, PBS is using a simple, straightforward camera shot that put the focus on the senators and Sotomayer.
Woodruff and Coyle talked only when the hearings stopped, except to identify speakers in the hearing room. And when they did talk during the breaks, Coyle generally had something important to say.
Under Woodruff's gentle questioning during the lunch break, Coyle skillfully explained the concepts of "empathy" and "activism" as they were used on both sides of the aisle Monday morning.
PBS was the place to be Monday. And unless the all-news cable channels change their ways, it would be my choice for coverage throughout the hearings.
One of the afternoon session's more fascinating moments of TV, politics and pop culture found Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota, delivering his opening remarks. The former Saturday Night Live writer and performer talked about watching such hearings over the years: "These TV hearings taught America a lot about the Constitution."
As he spoke, CNN put up a graphic informing viewers that Franken "portrayed a senator" in a Saturday Night Live skit on the Clarence Thomas hearings.
It could have been a little surreal, but Franken acquitted himself well as a senator who was grateful for the chance to serve and took his responsibility seriously.
And I am glad that CNN discovered that such a statement running alonside the screen is much better than letting the on-set experts talk too much.
Comments
It's certainly no surprise that PBS surpassed the "for profit" entertainment news channels. For accuracy, depth and perspective always rely on NPR, PBS and C-Span. They are the media champions of our democracy.
Except PBS has very limited resources and cannot staff many of the most important beats and stories in the country and world. And NPR has a narrow and erratic focus on some areas such as popular culture -- a beat it is usually years behind on in major stories, if not out of it altogether. Sadly, PBS and NPR and C-SPAN are not enough by themselves. But the coverage that NewsHour and C-SPAN can provide, is coverage that you can tust. Thanks. Z
Posted by: TJK | July 13, 2009 1:16 PM
There was no questioning from the senators today. I could be mistaken, but I thought they were merely making their "opening" statements.
You are right. Only opening statements that, of course, included a preview in some cases of questions they would ask. But there was no formal questioning of Sotomayor opn Monday. The day ended with her opening statement. Thanks. Z
Posted by: CB | July 13, 2009 3:06 PM
ChickaBOOMer -- CNN: Take Your Meat and Beat It
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/07/cnn-take-your-meat-and-beat-it.html
Posted by: StewartIII | July 13, 2009 7:09 PM
i am a highly trained psychoanalyst and am shaken by usage of "empathy" as if it were a synomym for sympathy or identification. Such usage in reference to Judge Sotomayer implies that a successful and competant professional is guided, not by their training, experience and professional judgement but by personal needs.
Empathy is a process wherein one understands another without losing one's own identity. I refer you to a dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytic terms, b y Englis and English, published by Longmans, Green and Co., New York, London, Toronto. pg.178
2. (empathy) "apprehension of the state of the mind of another without feeling as the other feels....While the empathic process is primarily intellectual, emotion is not precluded,but it is not the the same as that of the person with whom one empathizes. ... The attitude in empathy is one of acceptance and understanding, of an implicit "I see how you feel"." Professionals:, psychotherapists, judges, physicians etc. are more effective when they comunicate empathy, however, acceptance and understanding as in empathy does not wipe out one's professional identity - it is an indication of humanity!
Posted by: Mercedes Peters, PH.D | July 13, 2009 7:52 PM
CNN? crap news network
...
Posted by: palcarajo | July 14, 2009 12:38 AM
David, I by-and-large concur w/ your observations re/ the disparity in the initial coverage of the Sotomayor hearings before the Senate Judiciary, w/ PBS letting the news-just-happen approach versus the hackneyed,annoying stop-and-start, cut to the talking-head 'experts' hammering their right, or left- of-center agendas, typical of the CNN crew.
That pompous ass Wolf Blitzer anchoring at CNN admittedly has T.V. news smarts, or he wouldn't be in the powerful position he is, nevertheless, I've had my fill of his braggadocious , self-praising asides touting his crack, more-than-brilliant CNN news team as the "the best in politics"... give me a break, already.
I thought Sotomayor did an incredible job of maintaining an impassive, non-reactive facial expression throughout the entire time that the Senators got to say their piece. In fact, on a couple of occasions I thought there was a technical glitch and the T.V. image had somehow froze for a few seconds, w/ nary a muscle, in Sotomayor's poker-faced visage twitching one iota.
I must say, w/ the stressors of the moment, her accelerated schedule, of late, plus her dealing w/ the discomfort and awkwardness of her injured foot, yesterday, U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor looked in need of a shot of Jolt cola, or her own personalized 'stimulus' package.
The unfortunate bags under her eyes were almost on a par w/ the Dean of puffy eyes, former President, Bill Clinton.
Should I go as far as to say I really had 'empathy' (a dirty word these days) for this fine woman, who will be on the proverbial hot-seat for the next few days, but who I suspect will be confirmed w/ flying colors, although how many Red-State, Republican senators will judge the Judge primarily on her personal merits, and impeccable judicial record, and not solely from their right-wing, conservative ideological bias, and vote for her confirmation will be interesting to see.
Very few will break Party rank, I would venture to say.
A lot of mud will be slung and feathers ruffled in the days that follow, but the odds look very promising for this strong, empathetic, bright American woman, who just happens to be a proud Puerto Rican, as well, to be confirmed as only the third woman to sit on the most hallowed, esteemed, and powerful judicial body in the land, The U.S. Supreme Court.
I, for one, wish her God speed, and good luck in the challenging days ahead.
Keep that dial tuned to PBS, or the strictly audio alternative, your local NPR station.
ALEX
Hi Alex, I can see you are as big a devotee of Tv hearings as me -- maybe bigger. I love the comments here. I agree on Sotomayor's impassive expression. First rate. Z
Posted by: ALEX MCCRAE | July 14, 2009 11:06 AM
This has nothing to do with Sotomayersrace/creed/feelings or experiences. This person is being run over the coals because she has been nominated by the most powerful office in this country to be part of the most powerful branch of law in this country. If in anyone’s career they make comments or mistakes in a public forum/workplace of any kind that imparts questionable judgment should then that person be promoted to the top? This is exactly what is wrong with our Government already. Having said that if you’re looking to hire a specialist in a particular field be it law or medical etc where lives hang in the balance of how good one is with that scalpel. Think about whom you would want either judging you or cutting you open.
Posted by: Bill | July 14, 2009 2:21 PM
Just for fun, go to dscriber.com to see a word generation highlights today's tense exchange between Hatch and Sotomayor.
Posted by: dscriber daily | July 14, 2009 3:36 PM