Tongues are wagging over a confrontation between CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Toure (a journalist who appears to go by just one name like Cher or the Artist Formerly Known As Prince). At issue was whether Morgan should have been tougher on George Zimmerman’s brother in an interview or conversely whether journalists like Toure have discarded their neutrality and objective distance in declaring Zimmerman a murderer. Putting aside the childish rhetoric, it is a serious question of whether journalists are crossing the line into advocacy in declaring the guilt of someone like Zimmerman. The controversy has also raised long-standing uncertainty of the role of anchors and journalists in actively supporting a claim, cause or movement.
The exchange below is clearly driven to some extent by bad blood between the two men who crossed virtual swords over Twitter. After the Zimmerman interview, Toure objected that “Piers did not challenge Robert Zimmerman the way a professional journalist should” and later accused him of “allowing Rob Zimmerman to spout unchallenged lies further poisons a tense moment in American history. Be professional.” Morgan responded by tweeting “Oh Toure, you’re such a tedious little twerp . . . ps @Toure – 71k tweets for just 57k followers? Ouch. Ever get the feeling you’re doing a LOT of jabbering but nobody’s listening?”
Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow. Then however it got more direct and even more personal on the show. Morgan pointed out that Toure had pronounced the guilt of a man without all of the evidence and disregarding the claims of the accused. Toure insisted that Morgan was ignoring the obvious evidence of guilt.
MORGAN: Wait a minute. At no stage did I give any sense that I agreed with what he was saying. I challenged him repeatedly about many of the things that he was saying.
TOURE: What you understand as challenging, perhaps, maybe that goes in England. That’s not what we do in terms of challenging in America.
While not defending Morgan’s interview with Zimmerman, he did challenge Zimmerman’s account:
MORGAN: How do you explain as a family the video that came out last night of your brother within not much time after this incident walking around, unaided, perfectly OK, with no apparent markings to his face? If you get a broken nose or the kind of head injuries sustainable from having your head smashed on the concrete floor, you’re going to have blood everywhere. You’re going to have injuries. There is nothing.
I mean, we’re looking at images now. There’s no visible sign of any attack. How do you explain that?
I did understand Toure’s frustration with Zimmerman’s brother. However, I was a bit surprised to see a journalist say that a second unreleased 911 call would clearly prove Zimmerman guilty.
MORGAN: Do you believe that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin?
TOURE: Yes.
MORGAN: So you’ve already tried him? You’ve convicted him?
TOURE: You asked me what I think.
MORGAN: You called me — you called me — you called me an irresponsible journalist. Really? That is professional? Professional journalism means that you have just —
(CROSSTALK)
TOURE: — George Zimmerman is clearly showing repeatedly racist bias against a person who he does not know and has never seen before, and is pouring all these sort of stereotypes into this person.
That’s even before we get to coon. They always get away, which is ridiculous because the jails are filled with millions of black men. But he thinks they always get away. He’s up to no good. He’s got his hands in his pants. He’s on drugs.
It’s a 17-year-old boy walking down the street talking to his girl on the phone. None of those things are true. But he’s already said all those things.
And then we have the other 911 call, which I imagine will be extraordinarily damaging if we ever get to a court of law, where we hear someone screaming, which clearly sounds like a young boy and not a 200 something pound 28-year-old man with a gun.
A person, however, is screaming. There’s a gunshot. And there’s no more screaming. That sounds to me pretty damning. It reminds him of the face Emmett Till, bashed in the coffin, where we see here’s evidence of a black body being destroyed wrongfully, innocently. And the justice system, of course, not coming to his aid.
MORGAN: I’ve raised many questions about the justice system, the legal process, as anyone who has watched the show in the last week knows. What I haven’t done is convict George Zimmerman because I haven’t seen all the facts yet. You berate me for a lack of professional journalism.
But you have just said that you believe he murdered him. You have a very biased, one sided opinion of this, based on your assessment of the limited amount of facts that we have at our disposal. That’s your prerogative. I don’t challenge you. I simply say that as a fact. You also think it’s OK to do stupid dumb jokes, mocking — what did you call it, Zimmermaning (ph) me? You’re killing me.
So we are different people. I like to think that I’m a professional journalist, Toure. I think you are something else. But I appreciate you joining me tonight.
There has always been an interesting question of when a journalist should clearly state what has been established even if denied by a party. For example, I have long criticized the use of the term “enhanced interrogation” by the media — a term made up by the Bush Administration to avoid calling waterboarding “torture” as uniformly defined by U.S. and foreign courts. That is an example of where news reporting can mislead the reader into believing that there is a credible debate or uncertainty over whether waterboarding is torture. Yet, here many journalists feel the evidence is clear and conclusive — should they speak of the evidence in such terms?
Of course, in this case, you have an individual who insists that he was attacked and there is only sketchy evidence of what occurred at the scene. I have previously stated that I believe Zimmerman could have been arrested at the scene based on that evidence. Yet,I have been criticized for simply noting that the case had “murky” element and was “not as conclusive” as suggested in some coverage. I have also been criticized for not declaring Zimmerman clearly guilty while exploring the likely issues facing any possible prosecution.
As a legal commentator and a civil libertarian, I am uncomfortable with political campaigns and petitions demanding prosecutions. While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many details that have yet to come out, including forensic evidence. There are also questions such as whether Zimmerman will claim that Martin tried to grab the gun. Self-defense cases are context bound and detail driven. My training leads me to be neutral in such analysis. While expressing my skepticism, I think it is important to explore both versions of the shooting in a detached manner to assist others in reaching conclusions about the state of the evidence.
The question is whether some television personalities and journalists have crossed the line such as Al Sharpton’s suggestion of civil unrest unless there is an indictment. This includes journalists like Allison Samuels recounting what Martin was thinking at the time of his killing:
SAMUELS: Is this slavery day, where we have to show our papers and say, “Hey, look, I’m allowed to be here. I’m free?” That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to explain who you are or why you’re here to someone who does not have a badge, who is not in a uniform.
I am sure this young man’s attitude was, “What are you following me for, what are you doing?” And I don’t know why they would try to flip the script on that, and make that seem that that’s inappropriate, when he had every right to be there, and didn’t have to explain that to anyone.
. . .SAMUELS: Trayvon Martin had no idea what was happening. He had no idea why this guy was behind him. And the young girl, the girlfriend, I think is going to be very important when she is able to testify, to say he was saying, “This guy’s following me.” She’s telling him to run. Trayvon was very scared for his life, and I think there’s no way that they can sort of change the way that that went down, no matter what they release. . . .
SAMUELS: No, and I was in Sanford, Florida for a couple of days. I went around the community, I talked to a number of people. No one that I spoke to there could sort of defend what George Zimmerman had done, no one was in agreement with what he had done, and no one had seen what he had done. The women that you’ve seen — who admitted, who came forth — they went to the police, they went to the police station, and they talked to the media, they talked about what they saw. I even talked to a little kid who had seen sort of the end of it.
But I talked to no one who had actually witnessed the other part of this story that Zimmerman is putting forth. So, it’s all very suspect. It is also very convenient for it to come out now, when he — Zimmerman — and the police department is taking such a beating.
Samuels made some very good points in the interview and she is a serious journalist by any measure, but the question is where journalists should draw the line in presuming feelings or thoughts. This has always been a difficult question for me in drawing this line. However, I am concerned that the super-heated environment in this case may be interfering with an objective accounting of the facts and possible prosecution. That can itself lead to a violent response if the public is not told about the difficult legal issues that would be raised in any trial.
Notably, the continued super-heated language and marches (and irresponsible tweeting and use of social media) will create a serious question of a fair trial if an indictment is ever brought in the case. A change of venue motion would likely be filed, but where would such a trial occur. With rallies being held in major cities, the defense might try to push the trial to smaller cities or towns. However, there may be a racial differential in the jury pool in such jurisdictions. That would create an ironic twist that the rallies and public statements in various cities could work to the advantage of the defense in a venue change in a more rural area or less urban area.
There may be a different standard for legal commentators and journalists as opposed to others. However, for years, legal commentators have been urged to be outspoken in their accounts — taking predictable sides in coverage that often produces more heat than light. Another (different) question is whether it is appropriate for anchors on Fox or MSNBC to lead political rallies and campaigns. Keith Olbermann was fired at MSNBC for writing a couple of small checks to candidates for political office. I understand that policy and the importance to keep journalists neutral, but there appears no bar on actually leading a political rally and openly supporting one party — so long as you do not give actual money. Again, I am not sure of what the objective line is that divided a small financial contribution to a candidate and leading voting drives for a particular party. Fox recently cancelled an auction item by Dick Morris to assist a local GOP campaign. In defense of people like Sharpton, I am not sure such a line has been articulated. Moreover, Sharpton is billed as a civil rights leader and activist as opposed to a journalist. Morris is defined as a political operative. Does that matter?
What do you think?
Here is the transcript of the Toure/Morgan interview.
MCM,
Exception noted and stipulated. I do sometimes forget Moyers is still on the air. However, you go on to point to “guests”. News readers in general are not journalists nor are the real thing (Moyers excepted) usually the focus of their respective programs.
I do agree that American journalists should challenge the politicians and government officials on the facts. Asking tough questions is not akin to condemning an alleged criminal. Without tough questions from the media you get things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act torture called “enhanced interrogation”. Without the media attention to this case, the Trayvon Martin family nor the Zimmerman family would have no hope of the truth coming out. Of course, maybe there are some that don’t want the truth to come out.
MCM,
I have to disagree with your characterization of Chris Matthews as a journalist. He’s a color commentator at best. But I do agree that Morgan was the worst of the deal. He should be ashamed every time he refers to himself as a journalist, but since his primary interests seems to be celebrity as indicated by his career path, I really doubt he has a sense of shame.
“There are no journalists on American television.”
Sorry, there are many good journalist on American Television.
Bill Moyers is back on Monday nights for instance, McNeil Lehrer brings on many quality journalists. I might not agree with them all but they’re still solid professional journalists. Even the 3 news cable channels have guests who are solid journalists.
Ann Cornblut for instance overturned an article she previously took one stance but the facts were evolving and she kept up faster than anyone else in corrections, adjustments. She really one me over. The story was the Trina Bachtel story that got run over by the claim that Hillary Clinton lied about the “hospital story”. Most outlets got the story dead wrong, but one of my colleagues didn’t. He saw that the story was not only true, but was systematic of the southern Ohio health care reality. Hospitals were denying care based on other family member debts, small debts, and other.
When we confronted ABC, CNN, Fox, NBC, NYTimes etc, only Ann Kornblut and Jake Tapper took the time to correct the record, make sure it was sound and even acknowledged the source of the correction. This is solid work. I can’t ask for anything more.
But to your: “There are no journalists on American television.”
my experience in getting corrections does lead me to want to agree with this…there certainly is a large amount of punditry and anchoring instead of solid journalism…on TV.
Touré Apologizes for Piers Morgan Rant, Blames ‘Masculine Bravado BS’
By Chris Ariens on April 2, 2012 10:15 AM
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/toure-aplogizes-for-piers-morgan-rant-blames-masculine-bravado-bs_b119432
Cutline’s Dylan Stableford reports, Toure took to Twitter Saturday night to write: “I should not have gotten caught up in ‘winning’ the debate with Piers. I got caught up with ‘winning’ on some masculine bravado bs when my whole point has always been justice for this boy. I lost sight of that.”
Morgan isn’t taking the apology and moving on.
Typically deep thinking: “why the hell doesn’t he have a last name? ”
he does. is this the substance of your criticism?
On to the interview. Piers Morgan did a fluff interview with George Zimmerman’s brother. I agree with Toure that he threw light ball questions that were met with fog answers. “we’ll let the medical records determine that” and the like are red herrings. Each time the fish hit the trail, Piers Morgan lost interest.
But worse he blindly agrees with things that are wrong because he’s a fraud. The attack on the audio by the brother was filled with more horse shit than your average equestrian track produces in a year.
The changing of equalizer settings does not add or subtract core audio features. When Zimmerman threw this line of garbage out, Piers Morgan says, “right” then moves on pass this glaring nonsense.
Morgan pushed Toure harder than he pushed Zimmerman because Morgan’s concept is that a journalist is to play nice nice. If a journalist is asking questions of a subject and they evade the question, the Morgan standard would be to move on. Toure’s view is you call horseshit for what it is, horseshit.
Example: Chris Matthews regularly calls out politicos who engage in fogging. “what are you talking about?” he’ll ask. “you don’t really believe that, so why are you saying it”. He usually saves this for an insincere manipulator. Imagine David Frost just taking Nixon at face value.
We’d have no muckrakers in history if they had simply waited for the genteel manner Morgan claims is “professional”.
Looking at Piers Morgan’s career, he is not a journalist by trade but an entertainment gadfly promoter. Yes, he’s dabbled with tabloid journalism here and there, but he is not the person who has the authority to say, “i’ll teach you about professional journalism”
Back to the interview, Toure challenged how Morgan didn’t push and in response, Morgan points to “repeatedly asking”. Repeatedly asking something isn’t pushing, its repetition. Pushing is to gain an inch with each question. If the question isn’t giving you the feedback you think belongs there logically, then you ask more questions until the picture comes clear. Different than looking for a prearranged conclusion, it is more like what Toure said, “that doesn’t fit with the facts as I know them.”
Certainly Piers Morgan has been in an audio editing room, but unlike editors like me, he hasn’t a clue how the gear works because he’s all blow bag presenter not the technical crew. Few producers and talent know the hard cut work. He isn’t a lawyer, so he has to fluff there, he isn’t tune in to the concerns of our American enclaves.
To the topic of whether a Brit can understand the suffering, expectations, and collective memory of the Black Community, Toure makes a very good point and Morgan wasn’t open to it. Had he been open to it instead of blindly defensive, it might have been a worthy news moment. What Toure was conveying is the resentment of Cultural Voyeurism. Cultural Voyeurism means you might know some surface items about a group’s culture from peeking in here and there, but until you’ve lived in it, you don’t understand it. You have a surface level access to this.
Example: I am fascinated with Chinese and Indian cultures. I have an outsider’s experience that is part sociologist and part historian. What lacks until you submit to the identity of the area, is the undercurrent of feelings that are only awakened in situations that have affected the said community most directly. Sure, white people might know what a lynching is, but it doesn’t create the same feelings typically as it does in the black community. Morgan might get this intellectually, but he hasn’t got this in his bones.
Similarly, many Americans have no idea what it was like to live during the fire bombing days of WWII. Jokes about nuclear strikes are funnier in Kansas than they are in Kyoto. Toure’s point was treated as everything else he said, with mockery. That was the best Piers Morgan could offer. He was a petulant bully just like Bill O’Really but with his pompous British condescension.
“I’ve been covering this a week! What don’t I understand!”
He arrogantly said he could understand the story in a week of coverage. This very blind statement becomes clear when you’ve stood in protests over 20 years confronting police departments and the justice system for the disproportionate attack on black men.
He hasn’t participated in any of these types of struggles so even if he was an American it is equally true that he does not understand the story the way Toure understands the story.
As for the above mockery by John about “moment in history”, it is easy to dismiss a relative “moment in history” when it isn’t your “history”. Your comment isn’t very well qualified to begin with, especially in light of the ad hominem attack of no last name. Toure Neblett is his full name. If you approached information in a non-mocking way, you could have learned that without me typing it.
By in large, I think the grand ass in this interview is clearly Piers Morgan who decided to resort to mockery more than answers. “pure rubbish” etc…that is a non-answer. It is called, appeal to mockery in logical fallacy. He couldn’t respond because this is his best. This is finest. He’s a boor unless he’s happy. He pressed Toure in a manner that suited his egofest after he had his cozy interview with Zimmerman.
Toure’s one mistake was revealing that MSNBC was laughing at CNN. That dragged in people who weren’t there to qualify their reactions and lead to his apology likely. I don’t apologize for laughing at the joke that is Piers Morgan. He’s a tabloid garbage digger who wants to pretend to have credibility. When he can’t establish it professionally, he’ll simply play the boor and call that professional.
Anyone who believes in “objective journalism” needs to get a good course in journalism. It is a rare field. Most journalism has a view or bias. Piers Morgan is in no place to teach anyone about journalism. His condescension was quite telling. His patron garbage makes CNN look really bad in my eyes. Larry King used to helm that time slot. It now has a British version of Bill O’Really.
Thanks for your blog, Prof Turley and to all the fun folks who come by to share a view.
“He’s a boor unless he’s happy. He pressed Toure in a manner that suited his egofest after he had his cozy interview with Zimmerman. Toure’s one mistake was revealing that MSNBC was laughing at CNN. That dragged in people who weren’t there to qualify their reactions and lead to his apology likely. I don’t apologize for laughing at the joke that is Piers Morgan. He’s a tabloid garbage digger who wants to pretend to have credibility. When he can’t establish it professionally, he’ll simply play the boor and call that professional.”
MCMcC,
You have it so right about Morgan. As an inveterate watcher of crap TV, I watched him on “America’s Got Talent” from its beginning. Besides all you said he is also homophobic, misogynistic and bigoted. What else should be expected from a former Editor for Rupert Murdoch?
There are no journalists on American television.
There are a couple of news readers that have excellent journalists doing research for them, but there are no actual journalists on television. On any network. As others have pointed out, television is about entertainment and ratings, not news. That distinction between “news reader” and “journalist” is one bit of precision I truly appreciate about British English.
Toure apologizes for Piers Morgan Rant, Blames ‘Masculine Bravado BS’
By Chris Ariens on April 2, 2012 10:15 AM
MSNBC contributor Touré went on Piers Morgan‘s CNN show Friday night discussing the Trayvon Martin case, and the discussion turned to Touré saying Morgan isn’t qualified to comment on the case. “You are too new to this situation to fully understand what’s really going on here, and what’s really at stake here for America.”
“What a load of fatuous nonsense you speak,” Morgan shot back.
Cutline’s Dylan Stableford reports, Toure took to Twitter Saturday night to write: “I should not have gotten caught up in ‘winning’ the debate with Piers. I got caught up with ‘winning’ on some masculine bravado bs when my whole point has always been justice for this boy. I lost sight of that.”
Morgan isn’t taking the apology and moving on.
The idea that journalism bespeaks lack of bias is wishful thinking and has always been such. Observation of anything is distorted by individual perception, thus it has always been, even in the times of Murrow and Cronkite.
OS beat me too it. Entertainers, not journalists. Ratings and retweets.PR and puffery, not information.
It’s a joke. American so-called journalism is mostly a joke.
The mass media and the masses. Both pathetically shallow.
I tried to watch this, I really did. But it was just too painful. Neither man acquitted himself well at all. This is what happens when news morphs into entertainment and you have entertainers passing themselves off as journalists. And vice versa.
Where are Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite when you need them?
@swathmore, nothing on his wikipedia page has convinced me that he is at all qualified to make any sort of objective journalistic proclamation, much less to challenge the journliastic integrity of real journalists. this guy looks like a TV news “commentator” with all the objectivity and integrity of al sharpton crossed with nancy grace.
do you disagree?
Francesdavey – ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the standard for conviction; ‘probable cause’ is the standard needed to prosecute.
While all this is going on I have to wonder: have we invaded yet another country? has the pentagon “lost” another trillion dollars? have the banksters managed to get another bailout in order to get huge bonuses?
We seem to have another OJ-type case to distract us. Or is this a case to set Blacks and Hispanics against each other? With whites lining up on one side or the other. More divide and conquer?
FWITW: Even if Martin did confront Zimmerman, didn’t he “stand his ground” against someone who had been following him? If he did grab at the gun, what would you do under the circumstances of someone pulling a gun on you?
John, Toure is not a “clown”. Maybe you can read wikipedia since you obviously don’t know who he is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour%C3%A9
“Dark humor” and “black humor” are common for American blacks and white British people can’t get it. Riiiigggghhhtt……
re: “While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Your knowledge of the law likely surpasses my knowledge of my own profession, so I ask this question timidly: In order to prosecute, there cannot be reasonable doubt as to a person’s guilt? Or have I misinterpreted that?
“This is a major moment in American history.” Seriously? Who the hell is this clown and why the hell doesn’t he have a last name? What a joke.
“Not the stuff of Edward R. Murrow”. Yeah they were not promoting smoking to the children of the world.
One way to condemn Piers and Toure de France is to begin with the proposition that one commits a journalist Sin when one condemns another in a criminal context. Here you have murderer saying he is victim and victim cant talk. Allowing the weeny brother of Zimmerman to blather on was a bit much. He needs some cross examination.
The case is similar to Klan days and few people are making the comparisons. The Vigilante wore no hood. He is not a Neighborhood Watch Commander– no home owners association would associate with him now would they? They would be defendants in the civil suit.
Perhaps the Neighborhood Watch Commander aspect is one which the media are all missing. The right to arm bears is one thing. The right to protect oneself with a gun is not the right to go be cop in the hood. Or Klansmen correcting the nigras who step off the sidewalk.
The criminal proceedings will sort some of this out but a civil rights suit will be an avenue of justice which the family should pursue. I found, in my prior incarnation as an attorney in the South, that a civil rights suit is the only justice that the family of a dead black kid can get. The angle to pursue is that Zimmerman is the private actor, acting in conjunction with the public actor, the police dispatcher, that dispatcher’s superior, and the town itself.
Those entities are liable under the Civil Rights Act. We used to call that statute the Ku Klux Klan Act. Maybe Y’all should realize that Florida is as far South as one can get.
I believe it is impossible to be truly unbiased, only to identify and try to compensate for them. Check out the link from Harvard at the bottom of my blog post: http://charleneoldham.com/2012/03/30/walking-a-mile-in-trayvons-shoes/
There are some very interesting tests designed to detect hidden biases/