86

CBS News on Monday rebuked one of its star morning anchors, Tony Dokoupil, over an interview that he conducted last week with the author Ta-Nehisi Coates, in which Mr. Dokoupil challenged Mr. Coates’s views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The episode began last Monday when Mr. Coates visited “CBS Mornings” on a publicity tour for his book “The Message,” which in one section compares Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Jim Crow laws of the American South. In describing what he witnessed on a 10-day trip to the region last year, Mr. Coates criticized other journalists for “the elevation of factual complexity over self-evident morality.”

From the start of the interview, Mr. Dokoupil directly challenged this framing, telling Mr. Coates that “the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist.” The anchor added, “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?”

“There’s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state; I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are,” Mr. Coates replied. The men parried for several minutes in a tense but civil manner, with Mr. Coates at one point saying: “Either apartheid is right or wrong. It’s really, really simple.”

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago

Good, because that was some bullshit. Don't fucking try to bait someone into making an antisemitic statement on TV. Especially someone much smarter than you.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

He also implied that Coates' book seems like something that would be in the backpack of an extremist on his way to blow something up.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Yep. Just disgusting.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

The world is blowing up. But it's blowing up because of human economic activity, which is 'good', so therefore that isn't seen as 'extremist'.

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 40 points 2 months ago

“the elevation of factual complexity over self-evident morality.”

I found that tough to parse, but worth it.

“Either apartheid is right or wrong. It’s really, really simple.”

Well put.

[-] some_guy 24 points 2 months ago

Dokoupil just made himself look clueless. Like a sock puppet for Israel. Which he is.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Dokoupil just made himself look clueless.

Dokoupil made himself look worse than clueless. He made himself look like a racist.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

Dokoupil made himself look worse than a clueless racist. He made himself look like a zionist.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I just watched the interview, and you can too at this link right here.

Dokoupil was a major asshole as an interviewer. Dokoupil was inserting language as though they were Mr. Coates arguments. Dokoupil was engaging in classic strawman attacks on national TV.

I've watched CBS news on and off for years and Dokoupil has been on many of those pieces. Prior to this I thought him competent. I now have zero respect for Dokoupil as a journalist. He allowed his personal feelings and biases to overrule his journalist integrity. He should be ashamed of himself.

Editing to add: If you want to see a good journalist interview the same guest talking about the same book do so here with Jon Stewart and Mr Coates.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

It's not the job of a journalist to kiss the interviewee's ass and finish their sentences for them. That's not journalism, that's marketing and promotion.

The Jon Stewart interview is two people who don't understand Israel at all talking as though they're experts on Israel. Stewart didn't ask Coates a single difficult question or challenge his narrative in any way at all.

Dokoupil did his job and the fact that he's received so much backlash shows just how far journalism has deteriorated.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The Jon Stewart interview is two people who don’t understand Israel at all

I think most of the world now falls into the camp of "don't understand Israel at all" with the IDF killing everyone around them (including other IDF). I guessing Stewart is very knowledgeable about Israel. Coates was admitting he wasn't an expert on Israel, but is an expert on ethnic oppression, of which Israel has been undertaking for years.

Stewart didn’t ask Coates a single difficult question or challenge his narrative in any way at all.

Its been a week or two since I watched the Jon Stewart interview, but one of the final questions Stewart asked Coates was something to the effect of "So what is the answer? Where do we go from here with the two side so far apart?" Thank isn't a difficult question?

Dokoupil did his job and the fact that he’s received so much backlash shows just how far journalism has deteriorated.

The fact that strawmanning and attacks are the only thing you're recognizing as journalism shows how much journalism has deteriorated.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

You guess wrong about Stewart. If he understood Israel, he would know that the Holocaust narrative is very much not a part of Israeli culture. It's a Jewish diaspora phenomenon. Israelis hate when people (like Coates and Stewart) connect Israel and the Holocaust because they resent the image of the Jew as a weak victim. So the accusation they make that the Holocaust makes Israelis feel justified in treating the Palestinians poorly is just plain ignorant.

Its been a week or two since I watched the Jon Stewart interview, but one of the final questions Stewart asked Coates was something to the effect of “So what is the answer? Where do we go from here with the two side so far apart?” Thank isn’t a difficult question?> What I mean is, he didn't challenge him at all. He didn't question any of his assumptions or narratives, he just accepted it all at face value. It wasn't a journalistic interview, it was a conversation between two people who think the same way.

The fact that strawmanning and attacks are the only thing you’re recognizing as journalism shows how much journalism has deteriorated.> First of all, how did Dokoupil strawman Coates? Second, it wasn't like Coates offered a thoughtful, intellectual argument. There's no substance at all to what he says about Israel. he just gives his impressions based on his very limited experience and dresses it up in intellectual clothing.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Your suggestion is that someone that "understood Israel" would find the Israel's actions acceptable. That sounds like a rationalization. I think you're doing a good job of supporting Coates's argument. That being "Apartheid is wrong or it isn't. Its that simple."

First of all, how did Dokoupil strawman Coates?

I watched the interview weeks ago now and can't remember the specific words used, but the general idea was that Dokoupil was accusing Coates of using language and argument Coates never used, then Dokoupil was attacking that strawman.

Second, it wasn’t like Coates offered a thoughtful, intellectual argument. There’s no substance at all to what he says about Israel.

Dokoupil started his attack on Coates right out of the gate. Dokoupil left no room for thoughtful arguments with his strawman accusations.

he just gives his impressions based on his very limited experience and dresses it up in intellectual clothing.

He witnessed Israeli apartheid firsthand and was sharing that experience, and its parallels to other apartheid regimes. Dokoupil didn't seem interested in hearing from Coates and instead Dokoupil looked like he had built his arguments to dismiss Coates long before the interview began. Dokoupil came off looking like he was pushing his own narrative instead of investigating what Coates had reported.

Even if Dokoupil is a straight up zionist with zero interest in entertaining any other ideas, he did his cause a disservice because Coates came off looking more measured and with rational arguments. Dokoupil came off looking a bit unhinged. Dokoupil made me look into Coates more and find logic I hadn't considered in the Israeli situation. If was attempting Dokoupil to get the audience to dismiss Coates, he achieved the exact opposite.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Your suggestion is that someone that “understood Israel” would find the Israel’s actions acceptable.>

That's not what I said. I criticized them for expressing a perspective about Israel's motives that are simply wrong. And this is a common attitude about Israel I hear all the time: "The Holocaust doesn't give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way." That's simply not how Israelis think.

Dokoupil started his attack on Coates right out of the gate. Dokoupil left no room for thoughtful arguments with his strawman accusations.>

I'll admit I haven't read the book myself because I'm not going to give Coates my money, but I have now heard three different interviews about it. One of those interviews was about an hour long on the Ezra Klein podcast. So my impression is based on listening to him discuss Israel in these three different contexts.

He witnessed Israeli apartheid firsthand and was sharing that experience>

Wrong. He witnessed things that he *interpreted *as apartheid based on his own frame of reference and preconceived notions about Israel. The point is, he doesn't have the knowledge of the history and the details - he literally describes seeing things and thinking, "That reminds me of apartheid." For example, he describes having an IDF soldier approach him and ask him questions about his background and how that just feels wrong. Well, those soldiers are trained to do what they do for security purposes because the country has dealt with terrorism for decades.

I totally disagree that Dokoupil came across as "unhinged." No doubt he was trying very hard to suppress his emotions about the book, but he did not get angry or aggressive or anything. I will give Coates credit, however. He does present himself very well. He comes across as very calm and thoughtful.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I criticized them for expressing a perspective about Israel’s motives that are simply wrong. And this is a common attitude about Israel I hear all the time: “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.” That’s simply not how Israelis think.

I'm no Coates expert, but I haven't heard him express the idea that “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.”. I've heard him say something to the effect of "The Holocaust perhaps explains why Israelis treat others they way they do". Coates take doesn't excuse Israel, but does attempt to humanize their reaction. That isn't the same idea that you're expressing. If anything I would think the pro-Israeli camp would appreciate that perspective.

Wrong. He witnessed things that he *interpreted *as apartheid based on his own frame of reference and preconceived notions about Israel.

Are you suggesting that Israel doesn't treat those of the Islamic faith differently that those of Jewish faith as the prime criteria for that different treatment? The "why" is irrelevant. That's Coates's point. Any excuse to treat people of a different faith worse is apartheid with extra steps (and rationalization).

I totally disagree that Dokoupil came across as “unhinged.” No doubt he was trying very hard to suppress his emotions about the book, but he did not get angry or aggressive or anything.

If he wasn't capable of being objective and controlling their emotions with a specific interviewee, he should have bowed out and let others do the interview. Are you sure you watched the interview? Dokoupil's very first question (nearly a monologue in itself) included such treats as:

"the contents of your book would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist"

...and...

"You did not talk about [other specific violence against Israel]. is it because you believe that Israel, in any condition, doesn't have a right to exist?"

That last one is a clear strawman.

Those are not comments you say to someone you're interested in hearing answers out of. Those are questions you ask when you don't care what the person is going to say because you're using the questions as a way to advocate you position.

That last Dokoupil comment would be right at home on Fox news.

Bret Baier asked Kamala Harris a question using this same method:

"Half of American's don't support you. Is that because you believe they're stupid?"

CBS should be better than Fox news, and CBS's rebuke of Dokoupil shows that they are.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

I’m no Coates expert, but I haven’t heard him express the idea that “The Holocaust doesn’t give Israelis the right to treat Palestinians this way.”. I’ve heard him say something to the effect of “The Holocaust perhaps explains why Israelis treat others they way they do”. Coates take doesn’t excuse Israel, but does attempt to humanize their reaction. That isn’t the same idea that you’re expressing.>

That's precisely what he's implying. His argument starts from the premise that Israel treats the Palestinians poorly, which is wrong, and then postulates a possible explanation for that treatment. But his implication is very clear: it might be an explanation, but it's not an excuse or justification. My point is that his explanation is wrong. What he perceives as poor treatment of the Palestinians (heavy security, checkpoints, limitations on travel, etc) is not because of the Holocaust. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It's because the Palestinians have been actively murdering Israeli civilians in terror attacks for 40 years. Which is also why his apartheid narrative (which is shared by all anti-Zionists) is inaccurate.

Are you suggesting that Israel doesn’t treat those of the Islamic faith differently that those of Jewish faith as the prime criteria for that different treatment? The “why” is irrelevant. That’s Coates’s point. Any excuse to treat people of a different faith worse is apartheid with extra steps (and rationalization).>

Correct. All citizens of Israel, whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Druze, etc, have equal rights as citizens. The Palestinians don't because they're not Israel citizens. It has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. It has to do with citizenship. This is a very, very important point that people don't understand about Israel (or choose to ignore).

If he wasn’t capable of being objective and controlling their emotions with a specific interviewee, he should have bowed out and let others do the interview. Are you sure you watched the interview? Dokoupil’s very first question (nearly a monologue in itself) included such treats as:>

I did watch the interview. The extremist backpack comment may have been a bit melodramatic but Coates' perspective is an extreme left wing position. And asking him directly if he thinks Israel doesn't have the right to exist is not a strawman. It's a question. And a very fair one, since that is the perspective of many who share Coates' perspective.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not having as much exposure to to the topic, would you say your take here is a good representative example of what I hear people call a Zionist view or would you consider your views here extreme and not representative of Zionism?

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

I am representative of centrist Zionists, which make up the vast majority. The problem is that people have been taught by extremist anti-Zionists that the right wing nutjobs in Israel are representative of Zionism, when they simply aren't. It's no different than me saying that Islam is a religion of terrorism. That would be blatant Islamophobia, wouldn't it? But when it comes to Zionism, people think it's okay to make sweeping generalizations and treat us all as racist fascist scum.

Every society has its extremists. Every single one. The difference with Israel is that Western progressives judge the entire country by its extremists.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The problem is that people have been taught by extremist anti-Zionists that the right wing nutjobs in Israel are representative of Zionism, when they simply aren’t.

I hadn't been taught this.

It’s no different than me saying that Islam is a religion of terrorism. That would be blatant Islamophobia, wouldn’t it? But when it comes to Zionism, people think it’s okay to make sweeping generalizations and treat us all as racist fascist scum. Every society has its extremists. Every single one. The difference with Israel is that Western progressives judge the entire country by its extremists.

I guess I would fall into that category of Western Progressives. I don't judge groups only by its extremists. This is why I ask you specifically, if the views you were sharing here were representative of modern Zionism.

I am representative of centrist Zionists, which make up the vast majority.

This is why I wanted to know if what you're showing is extreme or not. Your views expressed here in this thread are pushing me toward the anti-Zionist camp. If what you are describing is a centrist Zionist view, then I see it troubling and see the points I'm hearing these days about anti-Zionism.

Thank you for being honest with your views and your feelings, it has been very enlightening.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

I went back over my comments and can't figure out what I said that you find so problematic. What could I have possibly said that is pushing you towards the anti-Zionist camp?

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

I recently heard Coates interviewed, and he had a very nuanced view of the entire difficult situation. The fact that the Dokoupil tried to dumb it down to a strawman argument is really telling.

Telling nothing good about Dokoupil.

[-] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

The close affiliations with Israel presents several very troubling and hard to square incompatibilities, not just around being for hard-right ethno states.

Things like the Lavon affair, where Israel showed a willingness to target US and British culture and businesses in Egypt with a view to pinning false flag attacks on 'Islamic extremists'...

...or the Apollo affair, where they very likely stole the refined uranium to start a nuclear weapons program directly from the US.

Or the attack on the USS Liberty where they killed 35 Americans and injured over 100 more.

Or people like Jonathan Pollard and Ghislain Maxwell (whose father was a Mossad agent), who perhaps play for Israel more than they ever did for America.

These all demonstrate weaknesses and an exploitative relationship which us maintained for the benefit of the US Military industrial complex, and the perceived geopolitical benefists of destabilizating a petroleum rich region of the world....

...but the costs are heavy, and there's an amount of self-harm in the US... A level of devotion to that seemingly one way self-harming relationship demonstrated by people like that reporter.

It's almost like another maga cult. Right wing, openly racist, and oftern against American values and interests..

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
86 points (94.8% liked)

News

23530 readers
4485 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS