TV personality Katie Couric scrubbed harsh comments on anthem protesters from the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2016 interview in order to “protect” her, according to her new book Going There.
Couric revealed that she thought that the 83-year-old justice may not have totally understood the question and she was trying to protect Ginsburg from left-wing blowback, according to the book, a copy of which was obtained by the New York Post.
She “was elderly and probably didn’t understand the question,” Couric explained in the 500-page scorched-earth biography in which no colleague, ex-boyfriend or acquaintance is safe from the former “Today” host’s brutal score-settling.
While the interview that was eventually published by Yahoo! News did include Ginsburg saying that she believes that not standing during the national anthem as an act of protest is “dumb and disrespectful,” it did not include her strongest condemnations of the act, according to Couric.
Couric’s boudoir was apparently a revolving door of celebrities, which should make for some titillating reading. More importantly, just who in the Sam Hill does she think she is? Ginsburg was recognized even on the right as a groundbreaking jurist. Her contribution to the debate over anthem-kneeling may have altered the course of the debate. Instead, because it didn’t represent a rigid, ideological point of view, RBG’s comments had to be disappeared.
Not standing for the anthem shows a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life … Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from … as they became older, they realize that this was youthful folly. And that’s why education is important,” Ginsburg told Couric at the time. “I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”
Couric says she’s a “big RBG fan,” which raises an interesting question for a “journalist”: What’s she doing covering someone she obviously worships?
As a topper to the incident, a Supreme Court PR flunkie called Couric the next day saying Ginsburg had “misspoken” and requested that her comments on the matter be removed. Couric ended up removing most of them.
“How high would you like me to jump, sir?” Couric might have asked the SCOTUS PR guy.
Couric didn’t blur the lines in this case. She destroyed them. It’s the definition of “fake news” to shape an interview in order to achieve an outcome favorable to a reporter’s political position.
And it’s not the first time Couric has been caught selectively editing a piece.
Couric’s admission marks a pattern for the reporter. In 2016, the makers of a documentary featuring Couric admitted that they edited her interview with a gun-rights group in order to portray it in a negative light. The documentary, Under the Gun, showed members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League sitting in an extended, awkward silence in response to a question from Couric about gun purchases. But audio of the interview provided to the Washington Free Beacon revealed that the group members promptly responded to Couric’s question. Couric and the filmmakers defended their deception in statements to the Washington Post.
Couric’s book is expected to make the New York Times bestseller list. And how appropriate is that?