Rush Transcript

[Datheus]

The censor is going to have to do it's job because I am thoroughly disgusted.

So I'm sitting here half listening to CNN. "Paula Zahn Now" to be exact. That was probably my first mistake. Anyway, it's a Best Of show, so they're playing back old things. This particular clip is an interview with John Edwards, presidential canidate.

In 1996, his son, Wade, died in a car crash. Wade was a promising boy, a senior in college. Driving home, a strong gust of wind caused him to lose control of his car. He died in a freak accident, his life stolen from him.

So in this interview, and this--unfortunately--comes out of Paula's mouth, "And do you see a run for the presidency as any kind of linkage to your son Wade's legacy?" Source

I don't think that you're taking the journey. Allow me to repeat that.

"And do you see a run for the presidency as any kind of linkage to your son Wade's legacy?"

What the ****? Now, the kid was smart. He was going places. But he did not have a legecy. His son died in a freak car accident. He is running for president. Where is the relation? Perhaps Zahn digging for Edwards evil, ulterior motives: a ban on wind.

You know what this was? It was sick. It was twisted. She just dug right into him. I don't know how else to describe this other than it's just plan ****ing rude. What would possess a person to ask such a ****ing stupid question?

So where does it end? What is wrong with the media? Sure, I know the generic answer. "The ratings." Well, that is the piss-poor excuse that applies only to the Suits at the top. How can the reporters find it in themselves to be down right brutual. That kind of question was beyond objective, it was simply uncalled for. I don't understand how such a large majority of the world cannot notice this. I don't expect everyone to have an IQ of 150, but this is above and beyond idiocy. All of it.

[wassup]

As a reporter asking the questions, it was her job to lead the discussion into new territories of information or insight. Despite however rude or uncourteous it may have been, Paula's job was to reveal to her audience more about this guy John Edwards, and I suppose in her mind she thought that her question would lead the discussion into that direction. I think the blame can be put on the pressures of the network and the desires and expectations for information of the audiences that influences reporters to sometimes ask less than respectable question.

[taoistimmortal]

you know i was just thinking the other day that in the last 2 years since sep 11th how many more people have died from freak accidents and other tragedies than from acts of terrorism maybe if mr. edwards gets elected we will finally have a federally sponsered "War on Natural Disasters" and other catastrophes which is what every god loving american really wants hey now ya know what i mean as for the media they are operating perfectly within their programs specifications or er limitations big business and the continous conglomerization of all media outlets has ensured that if you want a example of a journalist who stood against that movement towards a stronger more censoring center you should look up a man named george seldes i think his 1st name was george not sure though and as for the question zahn posed well yes it is irritating she should have asked if his sons death has motivated him to higher ambitions but then that form of the question is not sensational enough also if you want to listen to an interesting band that has no love of the media find "Helter Stupid" by Negativeland good stuff i swear

[griff38]

Paula Zahn is not a reporter or a journalist, she is a mouth piece for corporate profit making. In this case her attempt to cheapen and sensationalize a celebrity by insighting him with something too personal to have aything to do with current events or his current reason for being in the spotlight, is done to help her ratings. Because every marketing study, every advertising concept done today is centered around the fact that they believe you and I are to stupid to care about anything else.

You and I don't care about the truth or facts or justice and honesty, seriously you don't care. "Trust me" says the marketing guys we know what you want better than you do. No seriously trust us. You are stupid and will eventually learn to like cheap & sensationalized stories more than ones about facts and truth.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's also widely known that interviewers try to do their utmost to make their victims cry. Sigh.

The war on terror is a joke. Probably a million people die in the US each years. What makes the 3000 deaths in WTC special enough to warrant a bankruptcy of the US treasury? Yes, it was horrible, but.. not that horrible.

[Feanaro]

This interview reminds me of another interview done with a girl who had just been attacked by a shark and lost her arm. And the interviewer was asking all kinds of crappy questions like, "what are you gonna do now that you only have one arm?" and crap like "How are you gonnatie your shoes noe that you only have one arm" It's kind of the same thing, that poor girl lost her arm, they don't have to keep reminding her of it though. Much like Edwards, he knew he lost his son, why bring it up. People are stupid!

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The war on terror is a joke. Probably a million people die in the US each years. What makes the 3000 deaths in WTC special enough to warrant a bankruptcy of the US treasury? Yes, it was horrible, but.. not that horrible.

When you think that 11 000 are murdered every year by firearms...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
When you think that 11 000 are murdered every year by firearms...

Aaah, but you overlook an important difference: dubya's got friends in the firearms business.

As for the interview: In Denmark we have such a nice word for that kind of questions: 'Emotionporn' (rough translation).