Erin Burnett Should Just Apologize
October 07, 2011 9:08 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Everyone makes mistakes. But not everyone acknowledges when it's time to apologize. That time is now for Erin Burnett.
CNN's new evening anchor made a mistake this week when she aired a cheap-shot report about the Occupy Wall Street protests, mocking activists for being uniformed about big banks, and for being hypocrites in general. (They're anti-big business but they use laptops!)
The segment, as has been widely discussed this week, was an embarrassment. Not because anchor Burnett aired an opinion or that her opinion was at odds with the populist movement still unfolding in the Financial District. It was embarrassing because of how smug Burnett's critique was.
In her first week on the job at CNN, Burnett quickly became a symbol of how media elites tend to instinctively write off liberal activists as being not important; as being naive to how the world really works. (One phrase for you: WMD.)
And yes, the fact that Burnett was mocking Occupy Wall Street activists while her bosses at CNN had just taken the unusual step of co-sponsoring a GOP presidential debate with a splinter (conservative) political group, the Tea Party, only opened her up to obvious charges of a political double standard being used at CNN.
When Burnett aired her now infamous report, she stressed that Occupy Wall Street had started off as "less than a dozen college students" camping in the park, and that it had since expanded to "hundreds" of participants. By Wednesday night an estimated 10,000 people took part in an Occupy Wall Street march in New York City, with similar protests now spreading nationwide.
For that reason alone, Burnett should revisit her report and concede she was wrong to portray Occupy Wall Street as a fringe movement. But more importantly, she should simply apologize to viewers for so rudely dismissing the emerging movement, and put the unfortunate incident behind her.
//sarc off//
Far right astroturf protesters? Give them their own Presidential debate! Tea Party! Woooo!
Progressive protesters at Wall Street? Mock them and call them names! Dirty hippies! Boooo!
This is painfully obvious with the wall street protest and the glowing gushing coverage the 'Tea' party got. Even though the original Boston Tea party was in protest to a the megacorporation of the day....
Boggles the mind...
Bhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RCiAG7LF7Q4
He started right off with " They're both organic, grass roots...", and he lost me right there.
But, for this person who makes a career out of protecting Wall Street, to go on the inaugural week of her show (2nd day, to be exact) and outlandishly mock some protestors because they paint their faces in a weird way and dare to protest the greed and corruption of big banks is pathetic. That's not the way to start off a new show... but she's just so sure of herself that she doesn't care how stupid she looks.
At this point, I'll be surprised if her show lasts a few months, because it's a failure so far. And she claimed to be someone who wants to report the news with honesty and integrity, if I remember correctly from one of her earlier promos. Good luck with that one.
I had no idea, which makes it even worse and makes her look more arrogant for pulling such a stunt.
Of course that whole process wasn't helped by her adolescent suck-up to her "betters" in her bigoted, demeaning, smug, elitist(had to shove that one in because in this case it's appropriate) etc... coverage.
This is drop dead funny...Boehlert's contention that it was ok for Burnett to offer an opinion, even if it dissented with his own but we must now judge opinions on the smugness factor.
Boehlert, the king of smug, weighing in with an opinion on smug behavior...seriously? From a guy that writes for a website called "The Smirking Chimp"...his complaint is vacuous and another example of lightweight journalism.
Might be... uh lets see... you don't know what you're talking about.
There is nothing vacuous about pointing to a paid shill's obvious pandering to her corporate masters!
</smirk>
I can't tell you why I find it so fascinating, they just don't seem able to understand the word beyond some simple " these two things don't match" outline.
If you believe climate scientists, you can't fly in a plane. If you support healthy eating, you can't have a cheeseburger.If you advocate for alternative energy, you can't drive a car.
I wonder if it's more painful or blissful to have that primitive binary brain.
"This next segment is for CNN Platinum Members only. If you are not a Platinum Member, please leave the room".
apologies to Colbert
She is commenting aboiut a highly charged situation. Where the views of one side are colored by emotion, perception and reality.
A milquetoastish commentary would be worthless. She is on CNN to offer commentary, interpretation and observations.
I also found the comment about a political double standard being used at CNN as an interesting spin. Another equally valid spin is that their programming, as such, is truly the essence of "fair and balanced". I want to be kept on my toes when I'm listening to news or commentary. I don't want to be able to predict words or positions. WHy watch when the outcome is known in advance?
Her father is a corporate attorney.
Her first professional gig was as a financial adviser with Goldman Sachs.
Her broadcasting career began as a wall street shill reporter with Stuart Varney and Lou Dobbs.
Her fiancee is a Citigroup executive.
Her smug mockery of wall street isn't incidental; it's a projection of who she is.
CNN - Crap News Network
Bernie Shaw probably throws up a little in his mouth every time he thinks about what has happened to his former network.
Arlene Greathouse,Ph.D.
I think Cullen over at pragcap.com has the best take on EB.
"So what should Dan the “unemployed software designer” have said to Ms. Burnett? He should have said this:
“Excuse me, but I believe you have a completely insufficient understanding of the way that our fiat monetary system works. When the U.S. Treasury “makes” money it is actually reducing the outstanding net financial assets of the private sector. There is no such thing as “making money on the Wall Street bailouts” because, as the issuer of our currency, the U.S. Federal Government is not a profit making entity and cannot be compared to a household, business or bank. There is simply no such thing as the U.S. government having “more” money when it brings in tax revenues. As the monopoly supplier of the U.S. dollar, the Federal Government must issue money before it is available to us. And when they “make” money via increased taxes they are quite literally removing net financial assets from the private sector.
So no, none of us are “making money” on the bailout except for the people who caused their banks to collapse. That is of course, unless the banks or Uncle Sam are paying you some form of special bank bailout dividend? Did that happen? No. So none of us are “richer” directly because of the bank bailout.
More importantly though, what the banks did to us was break the moral code that is always attached to money. Money is always debt and when an institution or individual fails to adhere to the moral code attached to our debts, they are directly infringing on their moral obligations that they are legally bound to. And when a government bails out banks, individuals or businesses, they are saying that this infringement is okay and are in fact encouraging it. This is why we don’t allow counterfeiting, fraud, scams, etc. These are all forms of infringement on the moral code that inextricably links us all together via trade and commerce. Without the soundness and strict adherence to this moral code, there is no such thing as a healthy functioning U.S. economy. And the banks infringed on this moral code to the tune of trillions of dollars. And we let them get away with it. Now you’re justifying it with a false understanding of how a fiat monetary system works. Shame on you."
All she did was say they had laptops.
Could somebody point it out the mocking?
You don't believe any of those are her own opinions, do you? She's a dropout from Spokesmodel University and her qualifications for talking about politics are limited to the ability to critique Michele Bachmann's overuse of mascara. If she hadn't put out for a CNN executive, she'd still be working the Auto Show, draped over a Ford Focus. She's Brian Kilmeade in a fright wig.
Leave Erin aloooone!
I hate to admit it but other than your usual whipping boy, Fox News, absolutely no media outlet is commenting fairly or covering both sides on this national embarrassment. My nephew's girlfriend, who has a job and works on Wall Street, was caught up by the mob on her way to work last week and was pushed down a subway stairwell, breaking her leg. Where's the media reporting on the actions of these thugs?
Or reporting on Nancy Peloci's comments, in a backhanded slap at Tea Party protestors, calling the movement, peaceful. If you're at all objective you know this “movement” is anything but peaceful and is being funded by labor union interests and operatives.
As usual, the hypocrisy of the media in reporting this event is appalling. Kudos (finally) to CNN in an attempt towards (starting) to cover events without their typical left-wing bias. A move to the center, instead of being a shill for the left, can only help to raise their miserable ratings. My prediction? If this move continues, they will soon overtake MSNBC for second place in the cable news ratings.
Erin, good luck on your new show. I enjoyed your wit and charm on CNBC and you are one of the few reasons to tune into CNN.
(Yes, I know that I will be flamed for this post, but sometimes speaking the truth, objectively, leads to that. So be it.)
Her "fact" that the govt has made $10 billion and stands to make more is simply wrong. It's a lie. Please highlight this.