Video: Fox reporter tears up over polygamist story

posted at 10:30 am on April 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I’ve received a couple of e-mails on this clip, which brings up many issues at once. A Fox News co-host begins to cry when one of the mothers from the FLDS compound describes how federal agents removed her handicapped 5-year-old son from the El Dorado site and refused to release him back to her, even after explaining the necessary care he needs. Take a look for yourself:

This reminds me a little of a critical subplot in Broadcast News, the 1980s movie about telejournalism and the slipping standards of reporting. William Hurt’s character cries during a broadcast, and later we find out that it wasn’t exactly an honest response. Even if this was entirely authentic, and there isn’t any reason to suspect it isn’t, is it really appropriate for a news presenter to weep on camera when hosting an interview?It isn’t just an academic question. The FLDS sect stands accused of some pretty heinous child-abuse crimes. If those charges are substantiated, then the women Fox interviewed are either complicit in those crimes or brainwashed by sect leaders. A little emotional distance would seem more appropriate than to act out in the manner shown here, which biases the presentation rather strongly in favor of the women. The show’s producers brief their hosts on the subjects that will arise in the interview, and someone at Fox should have determined whether the host should have been reassigned.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM

SAINT Olaf!!! Why are you still posting?!

You are a crank , not to mention too in love with the

SPACE BAR

and with bold fonts!

Your buck-tooth Bable-thumpin’ is NOT the face of conservatism!

Look at how people here respond to your stupid posts.

Go away, you bigoted fanatic. If you want to preach, go back to your traffic island!

* * *

(And now, as you, our resident authority on Christianity, have refused to condemn King David or the Patriarchs, and thus given your tacit approval of their behavior (qui tacit consentit), I’m off to find myself some concubines…)

Tzetzes on April 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM

You point out that the existence of single parents can be a drain on governmental resources, but then again so are (in the healthcare sector) smoking and fatty foods, and I’m hesitant to let the government be the one to put disincentives on those things.

Tzetzes on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM

So can a lot of other activities to include the wanton sex (STDs, AIDS), high rise endeavors such as riding motorcycles without helmets, rock climbing without proper safety gear, etc.

The libertarian view is that the government doesn’t make these behaviors illegal, but will not allocate its limited resources to take care of those individuals. Why I think National Heath Care is a bad idea. Those of us that exercise and take care of our health are punished by having to pay the health cost of those that eat fatty foods, smoke, engage in risky unsafe behaviors etc. I have no problems with people doing what they want to do, just don’t force (i.e. the state)me to subsidize the consequence of those behaviors!

PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM

SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM

I’ve seen spambots with more charisma and coherence.

sulla on April 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM