I am literally shocked by the reaction of people in the news business to the
criticism of the Dokoupil/ Coates "interview" also to the reaction of CBS News
higher ups. I guess as journalists they feel a need to defend their own in these
troubling times

I just finished listening to a podcast where Julia Ioffe a woman I've respected in
the past for her intelligence makes a completely ridiculous defense of the interview

From her perspective Dokoupil's approach was OK because CBS mornings isn't expected
to live up to the standards of Walter Cronkite (sad but true)

I'll take her word for that. I don't watch CBS morning, so the best I could do was watch
some random clips to get a feel for what it's usually like. I would say it certainly isn't
"Meet the Press". If I'm wrong, please point me to some interviews where another author
get similar treatment on CBS mornings.

She also suggested criticism of the interview came from young people who don't
understand debating. I now see her as ridiculous or worse. Is an interview and a
debate the same thing? I understand there is overlap. Points can be debated during
an interview but the author never got to say anything about the book before the
criticism started. Typically in an interview you want to hear a lot more from the interviewee
than the interviewer. Was Coates invited to a debate or an interview? Seems like he was
invited to an ambush.

I did not know who Ta-Nehisi Coates was before I watched the Interview. I had seen
the name in the news, but never checked him out. I watched because I heard there was a
controversy. I also figured I'd find out what his book was about.

After a friendly question about writing in general, Dokoupil takes over. He doesn't
explain that his children live in Israel. Or that he has admitted in the aftermath of
the horrible attack on Oct 7th:

  "I come into this fairly as a journalist. But I’m also a father. You can’t separate those
   two at a certain point."

Why not tell viewers so they can decide whether this is one of those points, if you
are actually coming to this fairly as a journalist?

Now bearing in mind the author has not yet said anything about his book
lets examine Dokoupil's first question in two parts

  "...when I read the book I imagine if I took your name out of it took away the
  awards and the Acclaim took the cover off the book The Publishing House
  goes away the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of
  an extremist...."

This isn't the preamble to a question as much as it is the beginning of an attack
If you don't see Dokoupil is implying the book is unworthy of the awards & acclaim,
it has received and that Coates name & publishing house are largely responsible
for the awards and acclaim, you are fooling yourself or worse. He didn't have to
take all that stuff off the book. The "content" of the section either belongs in an
extremist's backpack or it doesn't regardless of the cover/awards

Again note, I the viewer, know nothing about the book and have yet to hear
the author speak about it, before Dokoupil in the guise of a question, that sounds
more like an opinion, frames it as extremist.

Part 2

  "why does Ta-Nehisi Coates who I've known for a long time read his work
  for a long time very talented smart guy leave out so much why leave out that
  Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it why leave out that
  Israel deals with Terror groups that want to eliminate it why not detail
  anything of the first and the second Intifada the cafe bombings the bus bombings
  the little kids blown to bits and is it because you just don't believe that
  Israel in any condition has a right to exist"

So again, I haven't read the book, so I don't know if Coates states or implies that
Israel doesn't have the right to exist. It sounds like a straw man argument. It seems
to imply that if you write a book about the conditions that Palestinians live under, in
what by definition is an apartheid state, you are required to give equal time to Israel's and
Dokoupil's justifications for the apartheid state. Dokoupil is surprised that a smart guy
didn't focus on what he wanted him too

Coates' answer is a good one.

 "well I would say the perspective that you just outlined um there is no
  shortage of that perspective in American Media um that's the first thing I would
  say"

Does any honest person disagree with this response? I've seen people praise the
"interview" as an honest debate but Doukopil felt no responsibility to respond to
or take a moment to consider that very salient point, What percentage of readers
are not going to be familar with Dokoupils points .

Coates go on to say:

  "I am most concerned always with those who don't have a voice with those
   who don't have the ability to talk um I have asked repeatedly in my interviews
   whether there is a single Network mainstream organization in America with
   a Palestinian American bureau chief or correspondent who actually has a voice
   to articulate that part of the world"

Dokoupil, ignores this point of course, I assume because he couldn't point to an
example that counters it, Dokoupil showed no sign of wanting an honest debate.

Instead, Dokoupil continues to frame the book in a negative way and it seems he is
clearly offended by it.

  "but you write a book that delegitimizes the pillars of Israel it seems like an effort
  to topple the whole building of it, so I come back to the question and it's what I
  struggled with throughout this book what is it that so particularly offends you
  about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place and not any of the
  other states out there".

I want to know what Coates actually wrote, not what it seemed like to the father
of two children living in Israel who doesn't even identify himself as such

Was that really a question? If it is, is it based on a legitimate premise? Is there
really any reason to think Coates is offended by the existence of a Jewish state and
not just by it's policies of apartheid & ethnic cleansing?

What pillar is Coates delegitimizing, is it apartheid? How about some examples
or quotes from the book to back up what Dokoupil is saying?

You can debate the legitimacy of how Israel claimed its land, just as you can with the
whole Western hemisphere, and still accept it's existence. Of course, I have no idea
what Dokoupil actually means.

Journalists, influencers, grifters and other media people circling the wagons and pretending
that backlash against Dokoupil is unwarranted will certainly use straw man argument in his
defense

Of course, it's legitimate to challenge Coates' facts. But Dokoupil didn't.

It's legitimate to question his conclusions but it would be nice if we learned
from the author what they were first

It's legitimate to point out what Coates' didn't include in his book but in the
context of Dokoupil saying, the book wouldn't be out of place in an
extremists backpack, and the way he put it, sounds like a personal attack.

Dokoupil's part of the "interview" would have been more appropriate if
it was Dokoupil being interviewed about Coates' book.

This isn't about censorship, its about a journalist who has admitted he has a
personal issue with this subject (but doesn't mention it now), hijacking an
interview so he could remind people that Palestinians are bad people who
blow up babies and I guess presumably deserve their harsh treatment
 
-Z
================