Ex-CNN Star: Roesgen ‘Crossed A Journalistic Line’
By K. Daniel Glover | April 21, 2009
A former CNN reporter who served in key national and international reporting roles today criticized the network and Chicago-based reporter Susan Roesgen for their coverage of last week's "tea party" in Chicago.
Eileen O'Connor, who is now a Washington-based lawyer and media trainer, said Roesgen's on-camera confrontation with two protesters "crossed a journalistic line."
"She needs to apologize," O'Connor said of Roesgen. "She crossed a line. She crossed a journalistic line. ... She was rude to people she was interviewing. I think there's no excuse for that."
O'Connor made the comments in response to a question posed by Accuracy In Media at the Politics Online Conference in Washington. She was participating in a panel titled "Palin-ated -- Online Media Training Don'cha Know."
At the Chicago rally against government spending and taxes, Roesgen chastised one protester for having a poster that merged images of President Obama and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and that called Obama a fascist. (She did not cop a similar attitude with another protester who portrayed former President George W. Bush similarly in 2006.) Roesgen also interrupted and badgered another man about his answer to her question and parroted Obama administration talking points about economic stimulus.
O'Connor said she has been hit over the head and pushed over while reporting on riots abroad and acknowledged that being a reporter during tense situations in the field is tough. But she said journalists must remain "professional."
"I think that that was unprofessional," she said of Roesgen's reporting.
During her panel discussion in Washington, O'Connor critiqued the media mistakes of both Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and wannabe New York Sen. Caroline Kennedy. She said Kennedy unwisely went "underground" after withdrawing her bid to be appointed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's seat, and now Kennedy is defined by mocking YouTube videos that show her repeatedly saying "you know" in interviews.
She agreed that CNN and Roesgen have made similar mistakes since the public outcry against the network's coverage of the tea parties surfaced. Roesgen reportedly is "on vacation," and CNN forced YouTube to remove a video that criticized her encounter with the two protesters and showed the aftermath.
"This is ridiculous," O'Connor said of CNN's reaction during the past week. "They have to come out -- she needs to come out and say, 'I did the wrong thing.'"
O'Connor also called CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli "unprofessional" for his infamous "Chicago Tea Party" rant in February that fueled the tea party movement.
"The funny thing about that is he's taking it on as, 'I did good,'" she said. "And I think he's digging himself a bigger hole."
She added, however, that she is "a little confused" about Santelli's role at the business network. "I thought he was a reporter, but it appears he's sort of making himself as more of a commentator and excusing it that way."
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
8 Comments | Post a Comment
This is another example of why Time Warner is losing money like it is going out of style.
The only question is when is Dr. Gupta going to get the order from Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes via President Obama to start pumping up the people who work for them and the “evil” conservatives in order to send those conservatives “up the river”. These people include Clark Howard, Bernard Goldberg, Dick Stockton (who was in Atlanta both Sunday and Wednesday nights for TNT’s telecast of the Miami-Atlanta NBA playoff series), Larry McReynolds, Kyle Petty, Frank Caliendo, Nina Easton, Adam Lashinsky, Bill Webber, Pam Oliver, Ralph Sheheen, Jane Hall, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Pete van Wieren?
Don’t be surprised if Dr. Gupta pumps these characters full of scopolamine or sodium pentathol to get them to “spill the beans” in the future.
Neil Cavuto’s “reportage” from a “Tea Party” in, as I recall, San Diego, crossed as much of the journalistic line as did Roesgen’s - and for days leading up to the event, supposed “newscasters” on Fox News (as opposed to their “commentators”) were outrightly shilling for the tea party event like paid hucksters or PR mouthpieces.
The increasingly bitter and 24/7 extreme political partisanship in this country does, I think, present a potentially very significant impediment to the future well-being of all of us and, certainly, to “The Common Good”.
As usual - the main comment that comes to mind on these kinds of reports is ... “look who’s calling the kettle black”!
TK..
I am not sure what your points are.. the point I took from the Fox side was at least there is someone in the Media (with an audience of size) that is at least providing some coverage about it. It is very very clear—that most of the Media is the biased to the social or liberal agenda and I for one at least appreciate that at least fox.. as conservative leaning as it is ...attempts to provide some in dept coverage so that I can at least examine it the events myself.. (perhaps this is why FOX has been kicking the crap out of all the other news sources—according to most rating organizations).
I am not trying to be confrontational but you know
Re: JerryC, Post 4;
My point is that Fox has plenty of individual reporters seemingly just as biased as CNN’s Roesgen appeared to be in her reportage of a Tea Party.
Fox is clearly the right-wingers network - MSNBC is clearly the left-wingers network - and I believe most opinion surveys focused on “media objectivity” indicate that a majority of observers feel CNN and ABC reportage is generally pretty much down-the-middle.
And, if you feel most of the TV media are left-leaning - you certainly must agree that ALL of the politically-focused radio media are right-leaning (???)
Generally, most people go where their personal agendas, predelictions, prejudices and biases take them!
(In my case, I’m an American League baseball fan - and won’t watch a National League game - - same with pro football - AFC all the way and could care less about the NFC!)
What is this Left Wing/Right Wing crapp all about? Are these labels Just a very blunt way of justifying flawed and dishonest thinking and actions?
Why not say it like it is, “Constitutionalist/Collectivist, or Republicist/Communist”?
Why do the Communists need to create all these labels? Why not be honest and call themsenves what they truly are, “Communists”?
“Hey everyone, we are Communists and wish to terminate the U.S. Constitution to achieve our own malignant goals”.
There really is a need for honesty now more than ever.
Just Opinion freely spoken for the time being while we still have a Constitution.
B.B.
BTW, The new national bird is no longer the Bald Eagle, it is now the Pink Flamingo.
Show your support for the new regeime by going to your local garden center and buying Pink Flamingos for your front yard.
TK RE: 5
I will agree with you Fox has “individual reporters seemingly” biased but I suspect this may be due in part to a confirmation bias. As you correctly point out “most people go where their personal agendas, predilections, prejudices, and biases take them!” This is part of their confirmation bias…
I also will agree that Fox is decidedly more conservative but this (as we have discussed in other posts) does NOT translate to “right” or “left” leaning. – but will have to challenge your assertions on several points..
Based on some brief “research of literature” (admittedly limited in scope but reasonably objective) ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all carried the coverage of the recent Presidential election and were all more favorable for Obama AND reports show that evaluations of Hillary Clinton were nearly 3 to 2 negative (48% positive and 52% negative). In addition, that reports on Barack Obama were better than 3 to 2 positive (61% positive and 39% negative). They also provided MORE coverage Clinton and Obama.
Fox.. The “FOX difference” lay not in what they covered but in how they covered the campaign. It will come as no surprise to learn that FOX carried the most positive portrayal of McCain and Palin and the most negative portrayals of Obama and Biden…….. By the same token, however, the tone of FOX’s coverage of the candidates was, IF NOT THE FAIREST, AT LEAST THE MOST BALANCED OF THE FOUR NETWORKS WE MONITORED.” Since a lot of the stuff of copyrighted I have only included some one or two quotes but in the interest of intellectual honesty, you can find a starting point as indicated.
Most objective media analysis I found over the last few days was reasonably consistent with the information found in a report Media Monitor (Copyright © 2009) is published quarterly by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan and nonprofit research organization. The Center conducts scientific studies of how the media treat social and political issues. Yearly individual and organizational subscriptions are available. E-mail: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
The problem as I said earlier – IMHO– there is SUBSTANILAY more liberal biased reporting across most of the major networks– this is a dangerous trend because it chills discussion and so doing promotes social agendas. This prevents honest and fairness in reporting… the one of the thing I think the framers intend.
Beaner
The “label” thing is from another thread .. Homeland Security Targets ‘Bitter’ America
it might be worth while reading—just to create some balance to the discussion.
Regards.
April 21 at 10:05 pm | #1 | Link
I read a something the other day “The First Amendment is like a carnival. Everything seems to be free when you walk in and then BOOM, your $50 is gone and your pockets are filled with nothing but lint and a paper clip. Now the $50 that you had when you walked in is in the pockets of the clowns who told you it was free.” The story followed up with the second part of…. “Our First Amendment is why good news reporters such as Bob Woodward from the Washington Post had groups like police, FBI and the government questioning his integrity for the stories he writes for the public’s morning entertainment.”
Perhaps a disconnect exists in the thinking here.. Certainly speech should be free… FREE from government intervention. HOWEVER it is NOT free from consequence nor is it something one HAS for FREE!!!!
Someone paid for that right you hold so dearly. And since it was been “paid” for by our national treasure – human blood– it should be respected. That respect is something “left –leaners” at least until you disagree with them. More interesting one would compare it to a carnival.
The second part of my thought is what I perceive as a major disconnect in our media today… Our First Amendment is NOT why good news reporters such as Bob Woodward ….write for the public’s morning entertainment.
The fist amendment is WHY THEY CAN do such things, but does it not strike you as a concern that a NEWS REPORTER writes for ones ENTERTAINMENT? One would think a NEWS REPORTER reports the FACTs – as accurate as possible, free of bias and opinions allowing the person to make an informed decision. If it happens to be entertaining –great but that should not be why it was presented… as NEWS.
I think this is one of the fundamental responsibilities of a “FREE PRESS” and I suspect it was generally one of the things James Madison (most constitutional experts agree) intended when he wrote the First Amendment.
I would argue that many in the media who claim NEWS REPORTER STATUS– and wave the free press banner – abdicate their responsibility and squander that freedom.
Just my opinion.