Social Jewish Interviewer pushed back on Ta-Hehisi Coates's book "The Message" and Compromised CBS Brass is condemned him for it

Scerpi

Gold Belt
Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
20,636
Reaction score
40,118
To start, Coates is a race baiting piece of shit. He's made a long career of it and done very well for himself. The Left panders to him like a god and its sacrilege to question anything he says.. which why this is a story in the first place. The ROT at these agencies goes extremely deep now...

Ta-Hehisi Coates's book "The Message" is a condemnation of Israel... Of course taking it solely as a racial issue with zero reflection of the issues on Israel's side. Whether he's or wrong is another discussion, as there is a several thousand post thread discussing that conflict now. There was nothing wrong with the interview, Pokoupil didn't criticize Coates himself, but brought up how the book was very one sided.

During CBS's recent interview, interviewer Tony Pokoupil made the comment that if you took away Coates and the awards, parts of the book sounds like it was written by a Hamas Extremist as Coates endorsed the 10/6 attacks.


“I have to say, when I read the book, I imagine if I took your name out of it, took away the awards, the acclaim, took the cover off the book, publishing house goes away, the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist”




Coates came out after and said he was angry because the other interviewer, Gayle King, had discussed with him beforehand what questions would be asked.

Ok.... That doesn't sound unbiased or anything



Coates made the rounds after the interview to get his ego stroked.. .




CBS held a closed door meeting to appease the radicals on the staff and to shame Dokupil enough to apologize

There was even discussion of whether Israel should be discussed at all on air.



During the meeting, one reporter stood up to defend Dokupil, Jan Crawford.... She was the only one

How Is CBS Marking October 7? By Admonishing Tony Dokoupil​

The journalist did his job by asking tough questions of Ta-Nehisi Coates. That’s when the trouble began.

But on this subject—or perhaps it’s this particular author—honesty and integrity are now an unforgivable act of editorial malpractice. At least that is what CBS News is telling its own staff when it comes to Dokoupil’s interview of Coates on September 30.

During its editorial meeting on Monday at 9 a.m.—the morning of October 7—the network’s top brass all but apologized for the interview to staff, saying that it did not meet the company’s “editorial standards.” After being introduced by Wendy McMahon, the head of CBS News, Adrienne Roark, who is in charge of news gathering at the network, began her remarks by saying covering a story like October 7 “requires empathy, respect, and a commitment to truth.”

Not everyone was buying it. CBS reporter Jan Crawford, who has been the CBS chief legal correspondent since 2009, rushed to Dokoupil’s defense.

“It sounds like we are calling out one of our anchors in a somewhat public setting on this call for failing to meet editorial standards for, I’m not even sure what,” she said. “I thought our commitment was to truth. And when someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account, a more balanced account. And, to me, that is what Tony did.”

Crawford went on: “Tony prevented a one-sided account from being broadcast on our network that was completely devoid of history or facts. As someone who does a lot of interviews, I’m not sure now how to proceed in challenging viewpoints that are obviously one-sided and devoid of fact and history.”



The audio of the meeting was leaked... and one after another CBS executive excoriated Poloupil

Dokupil apologized... likely because his job was on the line.


Shari Redstone, Chair of Paramount Global, spoke up to deride CBS for it's handling of Dokupil and for not having his back.

Shari Redstone says CBS leaders made ‘bad mistake’ with handling of Ta-Nehisi Coates interview fallout​

Shari Redstone, the chair of CBS parent company Paramount Global, said Wednesday that CBS leadership had made a “bad mistake” with their handling of “CBS Mornings” co-host Tony Dokoupil’s contentious interview last week with author Ta-Nehisi Coates.

In stark opposition to what CBS editorial leadership told staff on Monday, Redstone said that she did not believe Dokoupil had violated the network’s editorial standards when he grilled Coates over the contents of his new book.

“I think Tony did a great job with that interview,” Redstone said Wednesday during a panel at Advertising Week New York. “I think he handled himself and showed the world and modeled what civil discourse is. He showed that there was accountability, that there is a system of checks and balances, and frankly, I was very proud of the work that he did.”

Redstone said she had expressed her support to Dokoupil directly and was “very glad” CBS had Coates on the network’s morning program to discuss his new book, “The Message.”

“But we have to also provide the opportunity to challenge him on what he says, just like we challenge everybody else,” Redstone said.

On Wednesday, Redstone said the network’s executives made a “bad mistake” with their handling of the ensuing controversy over the interview.

“I’ve been working with the CEOs. I’ve been working with the woman who does a lot of our diversity training, and I think we all agree that this was not handled correctly, and we all agree that something needs to be done,” Redstone said



Honestly, these dying outlets can't crater soon enough. They're compromised cesspools for the Left. Having lost all legitimacy for opposing viewpoints They're almost as bad now as the circle jerking that goes on at College Campuses. Thank god there's a few left with some sanity to step in on Tony's behalf. But there's not many left.
 
I'm pretty sure those that own and control CBS are Jewish. It'll be ok.
 
I'm pretty sure those that own and control CBS are Jewish. It'll be ok.
First message in, tHe JeWs CoNtRoL ThE MeDiA…and I found this
I have no idea what Hitler was trying to do. I only know whats has been written by the victors.

drink-drink-up.gif
 
Ironic that he mentions two tier systems in which Palestinian Israelis are second class as in apartheid as wrong, but ignore israel is the only country in the middle east where Palestinians can get citizenship.

So it's an entire regional thing or it's not a thing.
 
First message in, tHe JeWs CoNtRoL ThE MeDiA…and I found this


drink-drink-up.gif

Sharri Redstone is Jewish. That's just a fact. The majority owner of Paramount Global, Larry Ellison, is also Jewish. I didn't say it was a bad thing. It's just a thing.
 
Ironic that he mentions two tier systems in which Palestinian Israelis are second class as in apartheid as wrong, but ignore israel is the only country in the middle east where Palestinians can get citizenship.

So it's an entire regional thing or it's not a thing.

Israel is the only Country because they actively threaten Countries willing to take them.
 
I’ve be ef heard of this guy
 
I thought it was a little heavy for a morning show, but nothing was exactly out of line. He even gave Coates space to defend his view point and Coates didn't dispute any of the framing.
 
"Why are you anti-semitic?"

"I'm against apartheid."

"Ok but what did those people do to deserve apartheid?"

"I'm against the existence of apartheid. Either irs right or it's wrong, it doesn't matter what they did."

"..............."

Also love the very telling question of: "If Israel doesnt have the right to exist, why do the Palestinians have the right to exist."

If a State cannot exist, than an entire people dont deserve to either.

Brilliant
 
What now?

Most of the Arab Countries fear allowing large populations of Palestinians over things like how the PLO nearly infiltrated Governance, the fear being rooted in what would happen if any PLO-led Governments tried to declare War on the Zionists again. This is at the heart of why they dont allow Palestinian refugees. Ryan Crocker (former Ambassador to Syria) spoke about it at-length:


Make sure you read the part about what ruined the closest any peace agreement came to being made in 2000, because it wasnt an act by any of the Arab Countries. Now, you could say the threat is arguably secularism in general, and that would be true in-part, but the other part is that the spirit behind what a PLO secular Nationalist movement would mean if successful. Ultimately it would probably actually look like WWIII. And this is at the heart of why Israel prefers Hamas over such a movement so much so Netenyahu actively funded Hamas, why everyone in the region looks at Palestinians merely existing as a threat, and why Arab response to slaughter of Palestinians is verbally very tough, but practically fairly flaccid...until Israel starts invading and even the it's fairly weak and not unified.

AP also wrote about this, giving the perspective that expulsion of Palestinians (ethnic cleansing) being a strategy to purposely shift demographics and forever put to bed the idea of a Palestinian State, further legitimizing the Ethnostate that is Israel:

 
You spelled his name wrong in the title thread and in the body of your post.
 
Most of the Arab Countries fear allowing large populations of Palestinians over things like how the PLO nearly infiltrated Governance, the fear being rooted in what would happen if any PLO-led Governments tried to declare War on the Zionists again. This is at the heart of why they dont allow Palestinian refugees. Ryan Crocker (former Ambassador to Syria) spoke about it at-length:


Make sure you read the part about what ruined the closest any peace agreement came to being made in 2000, because it wasnt an act by any of the Arab Countries. Now, you could say the threat is arguably secularism in general, and that would be true in-part, but the other part is that the spirit behind what a PLO secular Nationalist movement would mean if successful. Ultimately it would probably actually look like WWIII. And this is at the heart of why Israel prefers Hamas over such a movement so much so Netenyahu actively funded Hamas, why everyone in the region looks at Palestinians merely existing as a threat, and why Arab response to slaughter of Palestinians is verbally very tough, but practically fairly flaccid...until Israel starts invading and even the it's fairly weak and not unified.

AP also wrote about this, giving the perspective that expulsion of Palestinians (ethnic cleansing) being a strategy to purposely shift demographics and forever put to bed the idea of a Palestinian State, further legitimizing the Ethnostate that is Israel:

I see.

Arab States Are Giving Palestinians the Cold Shoulder. Here’s Why.

If that were to happen, they would have nowhere in the Arab world to go, says former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Despite public support for Palestinian rights, in truth nearly every Arab state has long viewed the Palestinians with “fear and loathing,” Crocker says. This is especially true of Egypt, which will continue to refuse to admit Palestinians from across the border, he says.
Towards the part of the article where you tried scapegoating Israel with threats aimed at those who would take in Palestinian refugees, the man interviewed, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, never came remotely close to indicating that. Didn't even hint at it.
The 1967 war and emergence of the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” was a watershed moment. Prior to that, the Palestinians in political terms were effectively a function of other Arab states and Arab militaries. You had the PLA, the Palestine Liberation Army, that was under command of other Arab states — Jordan and Syria in particular. So in a sense, you went from, say, 1947 and 1948 to 1967 without an independent Palestinian voice.

The trauma of ’67 changed that, where the PLO did emerge as the voice of the Palestinians. And what reaction did you get from the other Arabs? Fear and loathing. The 1967 war forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into exile following their brethren from the ’48 war [over the founding of Israel]. Many of them wound up in Lebanon and Jordan. And in Lebanon they emerged as an entity that was increasingly independent of any Lebanese government control. … In 1969, the Cairo accords effectively gave the Palestinians under the PLO virtual autonomy in areas where they were settled. They ran the camps and increasingly ran south Lebanon, and that of course was a precipitating factor for the 1982 Israeli invasion.
In fact, those states are terrified of the PLO gaining a foothold in their countries because, when they cameras aren't on them, and they coldly calculate their estimation of the Palestinian people as they truly believe them to be, the reality is they fear many of those Palestinians are terrorists or harbor extremist terrorist sympathies.

So, to revisit, if we shall, you made up the part about Israel threatening countries that would take Palestinians in. That was a flat out lie; a fabrication out of thin air. Do you not see the hatred in your own heart that would lead you to invent and spread such falsehoods?
Israel is the only Country because they actively threaten Countries willing to take them.
 
It's wrong to ask any left wing person tough questions.

Their opinion must be taken at face value.

If you don't believe that you are a racist Nazi.

The correct thing to to was to let him promote his book and praise him on everything he said.
 
Back
Top