Jeffrey Blehar writes for National Review Online about an unsurprising legacy media development.
The mainstream media has been afire over the past week about a major internal controversy at CBS, where CBS Mornings anchor Tony Dokoupil has been called on the carpet, publicly upbraided by his own network, and forced to apologize to his colleagues, all for the crime of asking literary activist Ta-Nehisi Coates a series of challenging questions. …
… To summarize: Coates is an overpromoted naïf with profoundly radical priors and a proud ignorance of history — this is in fact part of his purported appeal, the supposedly untutored “freshness” with which he approaches things — a black autodidact whose ability to write passable prose got him advanced to the forefront of American racial, political, and literary discourse during the ferment of the later Obama era. After accumulating a mountain of elite hosannahs — to the point of literary deification — he ducked out of the public conversation, but has now re-emerged to use that moral capital to plead for the elimination of Israel in the wake of the October 7 massacres. …
… What matters here is that when Coates appeared on CBS Mornings on September 30 to discuss The Message with co-hosts Nate Burleson, Gayle King, and Tony Dokoupil, he was expecting a laudatory tongue-bath and instead received serious questioning from Dokoupil about the one-sided nature of his reporting and the wild factual errors in his book. Dokoupil interrogated him crisply and unemotionally about the content of his book — its one-sidedness, its blatant factual errors, the fact that Coates explicitly disclaimed any background knowledge or historical research into the subject before he began writing — and Coates had no particularly convincing answers. He reverted back to a defense of the purity of his moral beliefs, which was the best he could do. …
… [T]he very next week CBS News gathered together its entire Mornings team for a conference call and formally rebuked Dokoupil for “not meeting editorial standards” — yet could offer no named offense. Essentially, he was formally and professionally condemned by his own company for asking pointed questions of a person pre-designated as a saint: the crime of lèse-majesté.
