Steve Murphy you ought to be ashamed of yourself…
You are a disgrace to the profession of journalism. You are an embarrassment to the Atlantic Region… Your decision to air the Dion outtakes and the wishy-washy rationale for doing so, only serve to confirm that the principles of fairness and integrity are very low on your list of priorities.. I suppose if you had been done the Deep Throat interview, you would have given him up by 6PM that night.
Woodword and Bernstein you are not…
This article appears in Oct 16-22, 2008.
Steve is a FANTASTIC Anchorman and News broadcastor. It was NOT his decision to air the interview, it is the head station execs that make those desicisions from what I have been told. And it was a very good idea to air it. The guy can hardly understand, let alone speak english. It says a lot, why would you elect someone that is not going to be able to understand or convey his point in the number one language in the country. And I am not saying anything against french speaking canadiens. I would want my Prime Minister to be Very fluent and VERY well spoken in BOTH official languages. He/she would absolutely HAVE to be. Dion hardly understands the English language and the interview proved it. I understood what Steve was saying, everytime he asked it. Simply put, M. Dion is NOT the man we want running the country, Nor do the Liberals need him at the helm, thank god for interviews like this. So we can see and hear the TRUTH. Steve Murphy has got NOTHING to be ashamed of. Neither do CTV or anyone else….except perhaps M. Dion.
Dear OP:http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1085162.htmlWhile I am personally not a fan of Steve Murphy, maybe you should read the above article before ranting. Or watch any number of newcasts that have followed the actual airing of that interview. Miche- Well said.
Cannatall and Miche, thank you for the link and for your comments… I am the OP of this bitch… And while I have not seen all of the subsequent coverage you refer to, I think I have seen enough…Fundamental to this “business of broadcast journalism” is the cornerstone objective of building “viewer trust” in the anchor. That is why words such as “integrity” and “responsible” are bandied about so liberally around this medium. That is why he is paid the “big bucks”.The anchor has to stand with his story. Or sink with it… And his R& R (reputation and ratings) depend on just that… So either Mr Murphy agrees with the CTV executive decision to air the Dion excerpts, or he doesn’t. If he agrees with it, then he is cowardly letting the faceless corporate bad guy take the heat… And if he doesn’t agree with the execs, then he should say so… And finally if he is told to just say it and keep your mouth shut, then he should say so and quit…If you need a more current and local example of an individual standing up for a principle, look at Bill Casey…
BTW the “uneccessary quotation marks” are added for qwerty who I know hates people who use them… miss ya.
hey stupid, it wasn’t his decision! do you live under a rock?
Shut the fuck up Joe… This is obviously beyond your mental capacity…
I must admit for what it’s worth, that I love Steve Murphy and I too was really disapointed in him for airing it. I was sure it wasn’t his decision and for that reason I didn’t bitch about it..but I’m glad someone else did. I sure as hell don’t think it’s something he should quit over, but I’ve made a mental note that the assinine execs who’ve ruined my “viewer trust” will be punished in the only way i know how: to watch a different news show from then on. I’m sorry Steve.
I did not see the interview in question. I might try to find it on YouTube or something. As I understand it, M. Dion was cast in an unflattering light. Now my question, speaking as someone who has not seen the interview, is: what made it so objectionable? Was M. Dion asked legitimate questions? Was he able to answer them satisfactorily? Did Dion look like a moron because he was set up to look like a moron? Or was he the author of his own embarrassment?You mention outtakes. That would seem to imply that the original interview was edited. With what agenda? That seems suspect in and of itself.
What I heard was he was asked a question, he flubbed it because of the language issue and asked for a redo, at which point he answered properly. Then Dion was assured that the flubbed version would NOT be aired.then it was.now, i DON’T think this was Murphy’s fault. The producers make the choices, and no floyd, I don’t think this is one of those battles that would merit quitting over. And no one can know if Murphy went and protested the decision when it was made- but at a certain point anchors, like any other job, just need to say ‘ok this is how the bosses are playing it’ and do their jobs to the best of their ability, even if they don’t like it, because hey, it’s their job. again, while I agree that yes, in monumental instances a reporter would be justified in quitting over their principals, come on- this is the real world. If people stamped their feet and quit over every little disagreement with their editor, there would be NO news and a whole lot of journalists on welfare.but i do think he has some responsibility, if he was the one who assured dion that the flub would not be aired. it’s one of those cardinal rules- never promise anything you are not 100 per cent sure you can deliver. and by making that promise, he takes the responsibility for keeping it.
Good questions and comments Hedgy and Miranda..As I understand it there are basically two types of interviews. One is a scrum, i.e. an impromtu news conference where any number of media types may be asking questions. The other type would be a scheduled sit down one on one interview. In either case there will be likely be at least some editing before the segment is aired. The Dion/Murphy interview was the pre-arranged type.There was a problem with the first question, which caused Dion to ask for clarification and to re-start the intverview on 3 or 4 occassions. Murphy jovially agreed each time. IMO the issue with the question had everything to do with establishing a time frame of reference for the answer, and very little to do with Mr Dion’s English-speaking abilities or lack thereof.What makes this offensive is that a commitment was made, confirmed, and then tossed aside… And along with that toss, goes the anchor’s credibility…Ask yourself this… knowing what we know now, would you do an interview with this man..?? Or as a viewer, how do you know that Steve agrees with anything he says, or whether he is just reading a script that as far as he is concerned may be completely bullshit…
Well, it can be assumed that SOMEONE Is always writing the anchors script- sometimes the anchor himself, but even if that’s thec ase, someone else had their grubby hands on it at some point. which means no, anchors DON’T always agree with what they say, anymore than journalists always agree with what they write- but it gets written that way in the interest of balanced news or the whims of the producers (i.e the money).I don’t think it’s a question of murphy’s credibility so much as it is about the sticky issue of on or off record- and frankly i’m sick of that responsibility ALWAYS being dumped on the reporter. the interview Subject (I.e dion) has a responsibility to establish the rules before the interview starts- as well, IF something is going to be potentially off the record, that has to be stated before. afterwards, you’re left to the discretion of the reporter and inevitably the editor or producer.now, in this case, I think somemade burned a bridge they didn’t have to. journalists all the time have things they COULD run, but they choose not to in the interest of maintaining contacts and credibility. Once you blow those, it’s really hard to get them back- someone here decided it was worth it to reveal the small fact that all ‘off the record’ things aren’t always so off the record (a neccessary delusion that keeps people saying things they shouldn’t and reporting interesting). I just don’t know if I agree.and frankly, i htink it hurts the station and the show more than Murphy- that decision wasn’t his, and i WON’T hold it against him. I’d rather watch him than the Frisk anyday anyway 😉
OK well then Steve is just a puppet, I guess… That’s good pay for being just a news reader…
I’ve always understood CTV-Globe-Media to be notoriously pro-conservative. It doesn’t surprise me that the higher ups may have decided to air the pre-interview flubs to cast the liberal leader in a negative light. The issue of journalistic integrity here for me lies not with Murphy, but with news agencies (CTV, CBC, Global) so openly choosing what’s news based on their political leanings. Of the three, I think CBC is the best, but it still has a clear liberal bias.
No question about the right leanings of CTV… Its not hard to see that CTV would have much to gain if the Harper government were to dismantle the CBC, something the liberals would be less likely to do…Maybe I have been naive about this in expecting Steve to either honour his commitment, or scream damn loud about it if told to suck it up… I expected more of him than this, regardless of who had the final say on what went to air.