The Fetterman fuss about nothing

The Fetterman fuss about nothing
This week, John Fetterman sat down for his first on-camera interview since he suffered a stroke just a few days before the Democratic primary in May. Fetterman’s circumstances — running for Senate while recovering from a major medical incident — are highly unusual.

Dasha Burns and her NBC colleagues conducted an exemplary interview given these circumstances. They allowed Fetterman the use of closed caption software that he says he needs to overcome the auditory processing difficulties he has dealt with since the stroke. In questioning Fetterman about his health, Burns was tough…

The Fetterman fuss about nothing

This week, John Fetterman sat down for his first on-camera interview since he suffered a stroke just a few days before the Democratic primary in May. Fetterman’s circumstances — running for Senate while recovering from a major medical incident — are highly unusual.

Dasha Burns and her NBC colleagues conducted an exemplary interview given these circumstances. They allowed Fetterman the use of closed caption software that he says he needs to overcome the auditory processing difficulties he has dealt with since the stroke. In questioning Fetterman about his health, Burns was tough but sympathetic. She asked all the right questions but did so with the consideration and sensitivity Fetterman — who, by his own admission, “almost died” — deserves.

Burns was also candid with viewers about her interactions with Fetterman when the closed captioning software was not being used. “In some of the small talk prior to the interview… it did seem that he had a hard time understanding our conversations,” she said.

In other words, Burns did her job. And did it well in fairly difficult circumstances.

Not according to some in the media. In the days since the interview, discontent has bubbled up at Burns’s candor. Buzzfeed ran an overblown news story quoting assorted experts criticizing Burns’s handling of the interview. One disability activist said that her conduct will “worsen attitudes and violence towards disabled people.” A column in the New York Times accused Burns of “suggest[ing] that certain kinds of accommodation are illegitimate.” The Associated Press saw fit to run a standalone story under the headline “NBC reporter’s interview with Fetterman draws criticism.”

Following the backlash, Burns defended the segment as follows: “We were happy to accommodate closed captioning. Our reporting did not and should not comment on fitness for office. This is for voters to decide. What we do push for as reporters is transparency. It’s our job. Fetterman sat down and answered our questions. That’s his job.”

This seems to be a self-evidently sensible approach. And one that the overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania voters will appreciate. When it comes to the actual question of Fetterman’s health and fitness for office — things Pennsylvanians have every right to ask for information about — the campaign is hardly being transparent. They insist that Fetterman will make a full recovery but won’t release his medical records.

The role of a responsible reporter in such circumstances is obvious. Indeed, Burns demonstrated exactly what it should be with her interview. And that makes the backlash from so many in the media so revealing — and so dispiriting.

Thomas parties like it’s 1989

Deep divisions, declining public trust, attempts on the lives of justices: these are not happy times at the Supreme Court. But oral arguments in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, a potentially landmark intellectual property case centered on a photograph of Prince, brought some levity to the top court. Clarence Thomas posed a hypothetical question and, in doing so, said he was a Prince fan “in the 80s.”

Will Trump comply with the Jan 6 subpoena?

The January 6 Committee met for what might be its penultimate session yesterday. The takeaways included compelling footage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and colleagues during the attack on the Capitol. The committee also voted unanimously to subpoena Donald Trump. “We must seek testimony under oath of Jan 6’s central player,” said Liz Cheney.

Interestingly, reporting from the New York Times and Fox suggests that Trump may actually consider appearing, assuming he can do so live. But in a post on Truth Social responding to the subpoena, the former president called the committee a “laughing stock.” In a fourteen-page letter responding to the subpoena, he failed to say whether or not he would comply.