ABC execs’ desire to delay interview shows misunderstanding of their job

By David McElroy · January 19, 2012

It appears that Matt Drudge might be responsible for forcing executives at ABC News to let their reporters do their jobs. If the facts are what they appear to be, the empty suits at the network don’t understand the news media’s role.

Late Wednesday afternoon, the Drudge Report flashed a report that ABC News had an explosive interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, but that network executives were debating the “ethics” of running the story before the South Carolina primary:

“NEWT EX UNLOADS ON CAMERA; NET DEBATES ‘ETHICS’ OF AIRING BEFORE PRIMARY: Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview. Earlier this week, she sat before ABC NEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned… MORE… Developing…”

Drudge reported that Marianne Gingrich had sat for a two-hour interview with ABC reporter Brian Ross and that her revelations about her ex-husband were explosive. But Drudge also reported that network executives didn’t want to air the interview until after the South Carolina primary:

“ABC NEWS suits determined it would be ‘unethical’ to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.”

What I’d like to know is when it became “unethical” for a news organization to do its job of disseminating relevant information to the public as quickly as possible.

Lost in the debate is any real discussion of why anyone might consider it unethical to air the interview this week. The only conceivable reason is that someone could claim the network is “out to get Gingrich,” but if a network executive is so wimpy as to worry about that claim, he’s in the wrong business. He needs to get some thicker skin and learn that it’s his organization’s job to get the news to people and let them decide what to do with it.

I haven’t made any secret of the fact that I have a lot of disdain for Gingrich, but that has nothing to do with this issue. This is purely about a news organization doing its mission. The job is to supply relevant information — as fairly as possible — not to withhold information out of fear that the subject of an investigation won’t like the information and complain about it.

The Gingrich campaign has responded to the charges with a statement in the name of the candidate’s daughters. It vaguely tries to lay the groundwork for a later denial of whatever Marianne Gingrich actually said in that interview. In part, the campaign’s statement said:

“The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events. We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.”

If Marianne Gingrich has relevant things to say about her ex-husband, the time for ABC News to air those charges is now — as soon as possible — before anybody else has voted. It’s not up to the company to play games with information, treating the public like children. The time to air the information is now, not after the next primary.

One of my favorite news mottos is one that the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain has used since 1922: “Give light and the people will find their own way.” I’m old fashioned enough to believe that’s the job of the news media — to give light and hope the public can make use of it. I’m cynical enough about the voting public to believe it won’t always work that way, but if a news organization isn’t providing the light — as quickly and as honestly as possible — there’s no chance that anyone will be able to make use of that light.

I feel pretty confident that the journalists at ABC feel the same way about this that I do. I could be wrong, of course, but I figure it was the business executives, not the journalists, who fumbled this decision. I also suspect it was one of the ABC journalists who leaked the story to Drudge, knowing that it would create pressure on his bosses to run the story.

The pressure worked. ABC now plans to air the story Thursday night and to release parts of the interview earlier in the day — before a Thursday night debate. Airing the story then — instead of waiting until next Monday after voting — is the responsible decision. It’s just sad that it took a leak to an muckraker to get the empty suits at ABC News to do the right thing.

Update: ABC News has released portions of the interview with Marianne Gingrich.

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts