CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour has doubled down on her shameless advocacy in hounding conservative British politician Daniel Hannan about the “Brexit.” Of course, the Iranian-born cosmopolitan thinks all the leftist experts were right, just as she hailed the election of President Obama in 2008 as resembling " a foreign country having its first-ever democratic election."
The CNN headline was “Brexit: Truth, myths and media 'neutrality'” – as if number one was Amanpour’s world, and the conservatives were the party of “myths.” Hence, so-called “neutrality” is appalling, since it is non-committal on “truth” and “facts.”
James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal had fun with this on Friday, suggesting the Amanpour vs. Hannan squabble was the latest CNN iteration of Crossfire (which means Jon Stewart would immediately want it cancelled). He wrote:
Hannan had the better of the argument, mostly because Amanpour was too transparent in her dishonesty. She kept accusing Hannan of “backtracking” (a Britishism for flip-flopping) because he did not accept certain anti-Brexit arguments she wished to impute to him; in fact, he noted, he had never made those arguments.
So determined was Amanpour to stereotype Hannan invidiously that at one point she interrupted him to play a clip of random white people saying foolish things about Muslims and foreigners—the British equivalent of the “Obamaphone lady” video that right-thinking people denounced as racist in 2012.
You may be wondering: Why is this an appropriate role for Amanpour? Isn’t the chief international correspondent supposed to be a straight news reporter? The hosts of Crossfire in its heyday were journalists—Tom Braden and Michael Kinsley on the left, Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak on the right—but they were columnists or editors of opinion publications. You never would have seen, say, Bernard Shaw as a “Crossfire” host. Where would he sit, right or left?
So what was Amanpour doing on what was an episode of Crossfire all but in name?
Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review was kind enough to mention Matt Balan’s item for NewsBusters, and notice what was wrong with Amanpour’s harangue:
I’d add that on at least two occasions in the article, Amanpour presents quotes from Brexit advocates in a misleading way.
First: “Daniel Hannan tells me that because 48% of British voted to remain in the EU, Leave’s leaders might have to ‘temper’ their promises to ‘Take Back Control’ of policies, including immigration. Say what?” Check the transcript at NewsBusters, and you’ll see that Hannan does not say that Britain should settle for less than full control of its immigration policies. Maybe he has said it elsewhere; but he didn’t say it to Amanpour.
Second: “So where is the truth; where are the myths? Perhaps nothing summed up this quandary better than Justice Minister Michael Gove, who during the campaign told Sky News: ‘People in this country have had enough of experts.’ Say what again?” Say the full quote, maybe? The interviewer at the link makes it as hard as possible for Gove to get the full thought out, but he tries to say, “People in this country have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.” I suspect that Gove has also had enough of journalists trying to make their political opponents look stupid by truncating their quotes. But if Gove tried to say that, it would probably appear on CNN.com as “Gove: ‘I’ve had enough of journalists.’”
Amanpour complained the pro-Brexit tabs displayed “naked political agendas masquerading as news.” As if she was swallowed in a burqa of objectivity by comparison? She’s for “real objectivity,” that is, er, fact-ivism:
This is the defining force of my professional life, which taught me enduring lessons in seeking facts above all, in understanding our golden rule, which is real objectivity, does not mean ever drawing false factual or moral equivalence. It taught me to respect the truth, to speak truth to power, and keep insisting on digging for the facts and the empirical evidence.
The EU referendum campaign has not just been about two sides arguing their case, but about truth and myths. This is where it becomes about a journalist’s mission.
I insist, and always have done, on operating in the fact-based world.
Remain was dubbed “Project Fear” by the Leavers, but never has there been a case so one-sided—Remain having been supported by a majority in parliament, the overwhelming number of business, science, and academic leaders, all of the UK’s major allies, and international institutions. . . .
So how does overwhelming evidence become just another matter of opinion to be dismissed?
Well, by debunking—nay, slaughtering—the messenger.
Amanpour doesn’t somehow see that “slaughtering the messenger” is a wildly emotional phrase, hardly “empirical evidence.”
Taranto offered that Amanpour is not "speaking truth to power," but is actually posing as a publicist for “expert opinion” in the Brexit matter, lined up heavily in favor of the European Union. He concluded:
To be sure, expertise has its value. By definition an expert has superior knowledge in his particular field. But an expert opinion is still an opinion, and experts are no less prone than laymen to prejudice, motivated reasoning, groupthink and other forms of cognitive bias.
The role Amanpour envisions for journalists is a subservient one with respect to the experts whose opinions she wishes to promulgate. But it is one that puts journalists in a position of authority over their readers and viewers. In reality, however, the consumer of news, as with any other product in a competitive marketplace, is sovereign. He has the power to change the channel or read something else.
Taranto suggests the media would be better off with those “Question Authority” buttons they used to wear when were young...and not yet acting as an authority.
