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.
Mike, I agree. I’ve also worked a lot in minority communities; worked with for and supervised blacks. In one setting, very small, interdependent staff, I experienced a lot of black/white, black/black dynamics that eventually led me to switch jobs. I was getting stereotyped for being an over educated white guy who didn’t belong (even after I spearheaded a significant wage updgrade for all us mere “s.a. counselors”), and the admin didn’t want to touch it (neither the black nor white admin). Anyway, even the older, little educated (formally) black women who got on my case a lot, and spouted about all whites having some degree of racial prejudice — recognized or not, conscious or unconscious — had a point. It’s a rare American who doesn’t recognize color.
Bob, Esq. Glad you cleared that up. I did see the Greenwald and O’Donnell exchange. Greenwald is involved in a big twitter war now. He is certainly an angry sort, himself.
http://www.veracityradio.com/documents/videofiles.pdf
This is a small snapshot of our video archive for instance. We track coverage based on topic and networks for different reasons. Some will be as simple as straight archiving. I think we have almost all of Prof Turley’s television visits. I keep a full quad on daily. (4 channels same time) Then we toggle to cover important items.
“what is an important item?”
time will tell, so we archive. Its amazing what we learn later after context develops.
This…is not what Piers Morgan does. Tracking trends, weighing coverage, watching anchors transform, channels transform. Name it, Michael Savage on MSNBC, Rick Sanchez being tasered, Dick Cheney confessing to authorizing waterboarding, we try to keep it for long term view.
God bless CSPAN for finally putting up their library, but even then they don’t post everything…glad we have those clips ourselves.
Ideally, there would be good use in study of how any single narrative develops, BP disaster as it relates to the protests over pensions in the early 50s in UK. Ideally, I’d have a satellite system for other networks outside US. But studying US media is a full time burden as is.
No wonder citizens here are so misinformed. Look at what they’re given. ABCNews compresses stories into 2:12 segments, learn about your military in :38 sec.
Did Fox cover StoryA? yep for 10:30. Did they cover StoryB? Yes, for 1:08.
Did CNN cover StoryA? yep for 3:35. Did they cover StoryB? Yes, for 5:05
Did MSNBC cover StoryA? no. Did they cover StoryB? Yes, for 22:10.
Fun stuff. if you like chomping antacids and coffee.
And unlike Media Matters, focusing only on conservative media especially fox, we’re more into the whole thing. I’m fascinated with propaganda in many different forms; the why we buy into shit science.
Like…why did I vote for George H W Bush? because driving around in a helmet looks silly. And why did I think that we were justified in nuking Japan? because nobody told me that Japan as devastated in Manchuria. Why do Texans believe they can secede when they renounced the right March 1, 1866? because myth is easier to keep up with than truth, I guess. Either way, it can become fascinating work, much like law.
Gene,
Since I don’t know more about Toure than that one interview, you may be right. I too do not consider Piers Morgan to be a serious journalist. However, unlike Toure, he did stick by the one basic rule of reserving judgment. Recall it’s so fundamental that we demand journalists preface their comments about criminal defendants with the word “alleged.”
Morgan was no clown if only by not stooping to that Fox News type low of convicting before trial as Toure did.
Elaine,
The part of that interview that made me wretch was the way he dismissed Bush v. Gore — saying something to the effect that people should just ‘get over it’ or something.
Swarthmore mom,
Lawrence O’Donnell is insufferable and pig headed. He is the liberal opposite of Rachel Maddow.
You’re a fan of Glen Greenwald; aren’t you? Why don’t you look up the confrontation between Greenwald and O’Donnell on Morning Joe about a year or so back. Maybe then you’ll see what I mean by insufferable pig head.
And for the record, when I refer to O’Donnell as being as much of a blowhard as Rush Limbaugh, it means I find them equally worth ignoring.
“I’ve lived in the black community for most of my adult life”
MCMcC,
I worked in Black communities for almost my entire career. I’ve been friends with Black people, worked for them, with them and employed them. While I have probably a greater depth of understanding than the average White American, I can never know the reality of the experience on anything thing more than an intellectual and/or empathic level. All I can say and it is a mere intellectual exercise is that I am amazed that the entire community it not overwhelmed by rage at the continued injustice heaped upon them.
MCM,
We are in total agreement about Maddow. She’s still a presenter, but she does show signs of morphing into an actual journalist. From what I can tell, she also has probably some of the best researchers in television today working for her.
The rest of your observations vis-à-vis Morgan and the general state of the media as it relates to spin I have no argument with.
“What else should be expected from a former Editor for Rupert Murdoch?”
Well said. I don’t want to be angry with Morgan, feels like that takes too much of my energy. I sort of accidentally fell into my media critic hat by being a fact finder. I’d have to source for radio programs and it became a fun activity. But you develop a long detailed memory of these personality types.
For every ounce I can dole out about Morgan, I have 10x the vent about the destruction of Nightline. Ted Koppel’s hair is rolling in its grave over that train wreck. No wonder we have such an uninformed populace.
I appreciate the dialog in this niche of the world. Call me out if you need. Good for us all.
The problem I see with this whole case is that while I believe Zimmerman murdered Morgan because of his skin color, the underlying issue is the SYG laws. These laws are not only racially charged in intent, but also supportive of class distinctions.
Bdaman,
It’s all Bob’s fault. He brought up the Stahl/Scalia interview.
😉
*****
I wouldn’t call either of these men journalists.
“News readers in general are not journalists nor are the real thing (Moyers excepted) usually the focus of their respective programs.”
exactly Gene. we aren’t in disagreement about Matthews or that type.
I resist for instance calling Rachel Maddow a journalist only because I think she’s becoming one…but that isn’t her primary skill. Her primary skill is based in her PhD in health policy. She’s speaking from that area of expertise in almost all of her clips. She takes information that other fact finders (one of my former roles in radio) cull together and collectively they put together their final bit. She’s the lead presenter in a group effort.
The veterans are leaving the building unfortunately and the truly finest are only guests or in print.
But lets say Piers Morgan doesn’t have to be a journalist. Lets say Toure was wrong to assume he was a journalist per se (if that was his take). If we simply deal with it at the value of the topic at hand (allowing the fog machines to show up and do their thing)…that is the story. And I’m with Toure on this that not only Morgan, but others have let these folks come out unqualified to speak and spin the machine.
Frank Taaffe, Joe Oliver, Robert Zimmerman, all are being allowed to speak as if they have authority. “the family representative joe oliver” has been said at least a dozen times. “close friend”
Toure was right in pointing out that “journalistic standards would allow that guy in the front door” or there abouts. Funny that Ira Glass just apologized for an exaggerated story that is in essence, very true.
This is bigger than Piers Morgan or Toure. This is bigger than CNN alone. These networks do what we’ve dealt with in journalism for years, “if it bleeds it leads”. There is much to talk about with this case, as we’ve been doing. The policy, the past, the future. These are no jokes and there is little room for clowns.
There are some real gems in those studios. I have huge respect for many who work at these networks. But when Piers Morgan comes here and acts as arrogant as he did towards someone who is telling him, “you don’t get it”…he lost an opportunity. He could have restated what he did get, asked for a dialog but he wasn’t interested.
Lets put that disinterest in context of British behavior to colonials and the occupied. Talking down from a Brit with power is almost a stereotype with lungs. I’ve seen it for most of my life. It isn’t a sole characteristic but it is a lingering impression in the feelings of people who live at the brunt end of it.
Additionally American arrogance has the same dismissive demeanor. “those little countries” Obama said the other day…damn shameful but honest exposure of the treatment of many countries by American leaders. “those little unimportant countries” is what is heard.
If Morgan were as erudite as he projects he’d been in tune with this, but that isn’t his mission. Being proud and right is his mission. If anything he just reinforced many power plays between white males and black males for a long time. “oh sure I know what you feel, ask me what I don’t know”…how high that wall is. No openness there.
I’ve lived in the black community for most of my adult life, spent years in rallies, learned most of my politics through community leaders in NYC, Chicago, Houston, Miami, and LA. But the idea that I can truly understand the reaction Toure is speaking of is still slightly remote and intellectual in nature because…lets see how well my french is…IT DOESN’T HAPPEN TO ME. It does happen in front of me though. Morgan is clueless about this. Toure might not know how to bring him there.
In the end, I’d like us to look more at how these networks climb over dead bodies to get their microphone in front of a lead.
Bob Esq: “Am I the only one here who thinks that Lawrence O’Donnell is almost as much of a blowhard as Rush Limbaugh?”. Not to sure about your taste in journalists or whatever they are.
Just teasing you 🙂
Here’s how reliable media does reports.
NBC News has launched an internal investigation into a story that ran on the “Today” show about the killing of Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin.
The Washington Post was the first to report news of the investigation.
The internal probe will investigate the editing completed on the audio recording of the 911 call George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin to death, made to police minutes before he took action. The “Today” version of the call makes it sound as though Zimmerman volunteered the information that Martin was black. In actuality, the 911 officer asked if the “suspicious person” Zimmerman was calling about was “black, white or Hispanic.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/nbc-news-trayvon-martin-internal-investigation_n_1396442.html
“The internal probe will investigate the editing completed on the audio recording of the 911 call George Zimmerman, ”
Yes, I’m very interested in what NBC reveals about this. Sometimes it is a nonmalicious edit, and others…who knows.
I had a live broadcast go dead because Emory University was under huge storm. But across the nation, an email war started claiming we cut the feed because the FCC commissioner who was speaking offended us. Truth is, I didn’t know what he was even saying because were busy restoring signal. LOL
It is easy to misread technical errors, so it will be interesting to see what NBC says.
Ms. Elaine this thread is about the confrontation between CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Toure. Although the MSNBC’s journalist last name is similar to the word torture this is not what the thread is about. Stop or I will start posting climate change links. 🙂
Bob,
Please don’t mention Leslie Stahl’s Scalia interview. I’m trying to keep a bagel down. As to Morgan and Toure? I think they’re both clowns, but I do think Morgan wears the bigger shoes.
**********
MCM,
I thought in context you were implying Matthews was a journalist. Sorry! My bad.
An excerpt from the Stahl interview of Scalia:
Justice Scalia defends torture
And Gene,
If you want an interview that was far more outrageously softball than Morgan’s interview of Zimmerman’s brother, you may want to look up Leslie Stahl’s 60 minute interview of Antonin Scalia.
To me that stands out as the archetype of journalistic malpractice!
I didn’t call Matthews a journalist, fyi
I said he has a way of getting past the fog. He and O’Donnell are former hill staff and do their thing and are good at getting past fog. that doesn’t make them a journalist.
One person who is going to have to deal with the facts on the ground, and not someone’s imagination about what he wishes the facts might be, is the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s job here is going to be horrific. So far as we have learned, there is no eyewitness to the actual shooting and the immediate events that led to it. There are eye- and ear-witnesses to parts of it, but once Z left his car in pursuit of T, things go blank for critical moments. This leaves a very large hole in the evidentiary puzzle from which the defense can argue “reasonable doubt,” particularly in light of the myriad issues presented by the “Stand Your Ground” law. Indeed, it’s not clear who was standing his ground at the critical moment. Then there was an interrogation which, if taped, might show a consistent, or an inconsistent, story by Z. Z’s lawer will undoubtedly point out that the police didn’t charge him and let him go. And, ironically, the more that people protest the lack of an arrest now sets up a great argument for the defense at trial that this was just a political prosecution. It’s a mess and the sideshows are making it messier.
Gene,
If you try looking at Morgan the same way we look at Scalia for the health care debate you’ll see that he wins the objectivity award here compared to Toure.
Toure proved himself to be a clown as soon as he attempted to bolster his position with his personal musings about things uniquely ‘American’ and what ‘hurts America.’
What a load of crap; or as Morgan called it “fatuous nonsense.”
fat·u·ous
adjective
1. foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.
2. unreal; illusory.
That about sums it up.
I too thought Morgan could have been tougher on Zimmerman’s brother, but on second reflection, that’s probably because I’m convinced he’s guilty.
Accordingly, Morgan is the hands down winner per exemplifying professional journalism and Toure is indeed a clown.