The New York Times lauds CNN talking head Anderson Cooper for his emotional reporting regarding the effects of Katrina.  The Times touts it as realistic and uncontrollable on his part — just like us! Of course, his outrage is directed at the Bush Administration, but because it is evaluated to be authentic, coming from his heart, it has legitimacy and credibility. Right?

WRONG: the Times totally omits the fact thatt CNN honchos told its reporters to get emotional on the air. Michael Kinsley's (no conersvative here) column  lets out the dirty little secret:

The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to "get angry."

Perhaps the New York Times wants to give a leg up to Cooper who is a useful megaphone for anti—Bush views. Slipshod reporting: one would expect their media reporter, Elizaberth Jensen, to at least be able to keep track of facts that are widespread and easy to access.
 
Ed Lasky   9 13 05