Thursday, April 12, 2007

Olbermann vs. Cooper, Round Two

Keith Olbermann apparently has a problem with Anderson Cooper.

In a recent interview with New York Magazine, Olbermann said:

"Don’t tell me you don’t want to talk about personal life when you wrote a book about your father’s death and your brother’s death. You can’t move this big mass of personal stuff out for public display, then people ask questions and you say, ‘Oh, no, I didn’t say there was going to be any questions.’ It’s the same thing as the Bush administration saying, ‘We’re going to war, but you really aren’t allowed to know why."

and

"Don’t tell me you can’t talk about your personal life and then, when they send you overseas and you do a report that consists of your voice-over and pictures of you in a custom-made, blue-to-match-your-eyes bulletproof vest, looking somberly at these scenes of human devastation—like a tourist—and that’s your report. Your shtick is your personal life."

Is this jealousy over the "$50 million over the next five years" deal Cooper is about to sign with CNN?

(Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to start an argument over Cooper's sexuality. Thank you.)

102 comentarios:

Suzanne said...

How reliable are these reports about the $50 million? I know CNN says no comment on them - but they don't commet on much of anything so that does not confirm or deny the report.

IMHO, I think Keith is jealous....and I've read a lot of other blogs where a lot of people are complaining/fussing/etc. at the increase and if it is warranted, or are shocked at the suddenness of what appears to be a gigantic raise (if its true). Most times once you sign your contract thats it until next time. Maybe not this time though. Who knows?

Whether it is true or not though, CNN has a fine line to tread. They have a big investment in Anderson now, one they want to protect - not only from other poaching network news bureaus, but from actual physical danger in the field when he goes out to report. Only trouble is if you protect him too much, he can't do the research to do a good substantial story; if you keep him in the studio to just anchor and hand off the substantial stories to other reporters, Anderson probably won't be happy because field work seems to be his best love, etc.

For CNN to pay him that much money, they have to give him the latitude to do what he needs to do to demonstrate to himself as well as everyone that he is worth that muuch money and not a lightweight and making himself the story or he will continue to garner remarks from people like Keith and his fan base will probably erode. Quite a tightrope there to walk. (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING HE IS LIGHTWEIGHT - I AM REMARKING THAT OTHERS THING HE IS)

The balancing act will be interesting to follow over the next few years.

Whatever he makes, I just hope that what he is doing is keeping him happy.

Sharla D. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I don't believe NY/NEers of the old money and affluent kind are impressed with GV. She squandered most of it and was cheated out of the rest. Her personal life was scandalous and her moral character often questioned & ridiculed. Her parenting skills not noteworthy. Thus, not much of her life was remarkable to generate envy, much less the inspiration of others. I think being a Vanderbilt was only marginally helpful to Anderson in gaining admission to Yale. As for his career, it's been Anderson all the way, with a hint of good luck. I agree, Sharla - Olbermann has his point. He also is entitled to his opinion, regardless of what his perspective is.
IF Anderson will earn $50 mil over 5 years, there's a chance he asked for the raise. That said, once he enters a league of serious money, his every move will be on display. It's no longer a question of what AC wants, but what the public, his colleagues and media will grasp as their entitlement. He might wish those Manhattan billboards of his sexiness will blow away in a tornado.

Sharla D. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

yeah, I know, hurricanes on the coast, tornado's inland. I chose tornado regardless, because if it's a hurricane, Anderson might have to cover it. Tornado's move too fast for reporters. There would be no more billboards.

The Original Miranda Lane said...

Olbermann may have a point, as sometimes the stories do have an air of artificiality or feel like a photo-op at times. But that's the nature of the biz sometimes.

In terms of the personal life... well, one's personal life should remain exactly that if they so desire - it's personal. Doesn't matter what profession one is in. When you choose to reveal some details, it doesn't entitle the world to full disclosure of everything else.

I know there are certain things about my own personal life that I share publically and there are other things which will remain personal and private. And that's not going to change when I become famous.

Suzanne said...

AC's career has the aspect of a shooting star - right now its streaking brightly across the sky for us all to ooh and ahh over. With hard work and continued excellance, that star will continue to streak for a long time. However, if that excellance sags or expectations are not met, then we all know what happens eventually to shooting stars - they fall to earth and burn up in the atmosphere. So a storm won't be needed (smile).

GV - I have read most of her books. AC writes just like her. Unfortunately, a lot of his book about his father's and brother's book is a rewording of her book about the same thing with some extra details from his perspective thrown in. A lot of the rest of his book read like rehashes from his reporter's notebook. I like the book but I didn't really feel like I learned anything I didn't already know from it. (Also his title is a variation on Carrie Fisher's book - Postcards from the Edge - but perhaps that was written so long ago he didn't know that).

GV's books are "interesting" - one, she comes across as having greatly favored the older son, Carter, who committed suicide, over Anderson; her financial sense is nil so when people talk about AC having the Vanderbilt money to live on and not having to work I laugh, because that money was gone; she lost it all. His mother even had to live with him for 2 years or so while she got back on her feet after the IRS took it all for back taxes and admits in her book "It seemed imiportant at the time" that one of the big fashion designers "supported" her until she got back on her feet (if she was living with Anderson, how much more support did she need??). She slept with every man that looked at her. Not impressive.

I admire AC for having been able to get to where he is because he did it all on his own - being her son and being on the social register did not buy him any credits and may have made it harder. Even an education from Yale may not have helped.

Her books and his book are similiar in the way too that they tell so much and then stop...no more. You read Wyatt Cooper's families book and you don't get thaat sense - his book was a very well written open piece about his family when he was growing up and the family he was raising when he wrote it. The detail is amazing and delightful and you get the sense when you finish it that you actually got a glimpse of the real Wyatt. If you haven't read his book Families its a good read.

Anonymous said...

I would love to read "Families" but can't find it anywhere. And it's too expensive to buy.

Anonymous said...

@ suzanne

"GV's books are "interesting" - one, she comes across as having greatly favored the older son, Carter, who committed suicide, over Anderson"

Wow, it must have been hard for Anderson. Do you know in which book does she imply this?

@ anon

Check your local library, maybe they can help you get the book through a library loan from a Univeristy etc. Its worth the try, I actually had to wait a couple of weeks for it, but it was worth it, excelent book!

Suzanne said...

I got Families through the local library as well - waited about a week but well worth it.

GV's books - of course the one about a Mother's Loss (about Carter's death) and then the last one about here romances. In a way I thought the same of Wyatt's families book as well but not quite as blatant - they went on and on about how precocious Carter was and there was ancedote after anedote about him, and the stuff about Anderson almost seemed an afterthought. Of course, he could have just been a quieter child. But it did seem slated to me - and it also did to my daughter, my best friend, and DH who both read the books as well. I felt for Anderson on it and wondered if he thought the same but was just too loyal and well-bred to say anything. (I've seen this remark about them favoring Carter also in other places so I know its not just me who has that impression).

Perhaps its just the books - like email, the written word can be mis-construed and oftentimes does not express the total picture. From Wyatt's book, it seemed he took special pains to do things wth both boys, but not sure about GV. As long as Anderson is happy with his family (and he seems to be) it probably doesn't matter how the books come across. Interpretations, like first impressions, are very often wrong.

Sharla D. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suzanne said...

@Sharla - If I offended you with my interpretation of GV's collection of books, then I most humbly apologize. As I said it was an intrepetation - an opinion - subject to being wrong. I sincerely hope your impression is the correct one as I felt so sorry for Anderson when I read the books and got that impression; I have worked with children who suffered problems from not being "mom's favorite" and I hated to think he might have had some of the same problems.

You are a very astute lady so I am going to assume you are right and not worry about it anymore.

You are right; he is one to be very proud of. He is hard working, sincere, giving, smart, humble, etc. I have 5 children (3 are grown) that I am very proud of, so I am sure that GV is just as proud of him, if not more.

On another note (and sorry this is OT):
You said your family was Marks - my DH has Marks on his paternal grandmother's side of the family. Where did your Marks come over to North America originally (ours were Virginia). His Marks family is huge as well. When I saw the name I just wondered if it was the same. Its amazing how many people you can be related to as you go backwards in your family tree - in fact my DH is also somehow related to Anderson through the Boykins (the Families book mentions this part of Wyatt's family) but it is very far back and I'm still tracing to see just where the families intersect. It is an interesting exercise.

At any rate - I do apologize if I offended you or anyone else with my opinion of what I read. The last thing I want to do is start a fuss on the list especially over something that is just an opinion.

Anonymous said...

I think Suzanne's opinion about GV & her haphazard at best parenting skills are shared by many. While GV trailed on and on in print, I got the sense that she was proud of her conquests and assumed to be accomplishments. Somehow, I didn't get the humor in a barren kitchen with perhaps a box of Carr table water crackers as the main staple of food. Especially when she dined regularly with her "dates" - as she said, ordering the meal they would have. I'm not going to trail on and on, but I will say that she was a negative force in the lives of her FOUR boys - she should have known better. Anderson working as a model - what was that? He needed fast cash before he was a teen? I know, he wanted to earn his own money...that's where parents step in and say no. I sense there was more to the story than the sleezy photographer calling Anderson at his house. Parenting is tough at best, I know that firsthand. But to make tremendous mistakes with 4 of 4 kids is not okay in my book. Beep beep back up the truck. GV had enough years with Wyatt and living in a world full of families to know better. While I can't say the gossip is correct that Wyatt wanted to leave GV but was worried she'd make a mess with raising Carter and Anderson, I do believe he knew he was the better parent. It's easy for her now to present AC as her prize possession. He did it all; mom is along for the ride. Looks can be deceiving.

Anonymous said...

Families is also in paperback. If you can find it, it's much cheaper than the hardback version. I sent my paperback to a viewer looking for the book several months ago. If you ask around, you might find that someone has a copy they're willing to lend or give you. I didn't ask for my book back, or I'd share with you.

Sharla D. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anon 12:09

I thought the same thing when I read about the table Crackers, no wonder he is so skninny.

As a mother I would worry that my child is not only well-raised and has manners, but that he is healthy and can rely on me as a provider. I think that may explain why he eats the same foods every week (egg whites). There is a quality to food that does not merely rely on nutrition.

Maybe since his father died, and he was so identified with him, the chance to earn his own money gave him a renewed sense of stability. in his book he mentines that when his father died he told tha nanny not to worry that they would be fine. He was 10, and yet acting ans asuuming the role of a "little" man.

I agree no way would I allow my 10 year old child to go to work for a model agency without my direct supervision (he went to work on the subway, and alone, at that age!!!), not in the 70's and not now!

I think Anderson is a very compassionate person, and forgives his mother for any mishaps. He probably realizes she din't have that great a childhood either. One of my favorite pictures is the one Anderson is being interviewed by Oprah, the loving and compassionate look towards his mother was priceless!

Sharla D. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suzanne said...

To change the subject - there is a cute picture I saw of a set of photographs GV must have had done when the boys were little. Was wondering if any of you had seen them. I saw them on a search in google.

She is at the top of the stairs hoiding AC (he's about 2 I think) with Carter next to her. Then in the next frame it looks like they are playing hide and seek - Carter is peeking out from behind her and AC - all you can see of him is a fat little chubby arm sticking out from behind the draperies behind her. So cute. Even though it doesn't show much of AC I have to say it is one of my favorites.

max said...

heard AC is over in afganistan this week. i hope he will be okay. its dangerous over there.

Suzanne said...

He just posted on 360 blog from Afghanistan over there. Says a lot more dangerous over there. By time he got to hotel there had already been one bomb go off. Besides the war they are going to investigate the Taliban's opium traffic over there this week - he has Peter Bergen and Nic Robertson with him.

Hope they will stay safe and wear their protective gear.

Suzanne said...

John Young just announced on AC360 that Anderson and his crew are on the way back from Afghanistan to Virginia to cover the shooting there.

Anonymous said...

Poor Anderson, really, Afghanistan is kind really far away from Virginia, why make him come back? Cant he just cover the story from where he is with additional aid from the studio? Jesus!!!

max said...

that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. why make him come back. he should have stayed but i guess that they think AC is so empathetic that the viewers want to watch him get upset on camera. i dont think thats a bad thing. he is always saying and doinng exactly what im thinking anyway.

Anonymous said...

A woman named Michelle in New Jersey stated on John Robert's post, exactly what everyone has started saying here. WHY did they bring him back? He should have stayed in Afganistan. There are plenty of other capable reporters doing what they have just sent him to do. It makes no sense at ALL.

ivy said...

cnn has wall-to-wall coverage second day in a row. Who do you think will watch Anfghanistan reports this week?
People will switch to a different channel to get yet more details of the shooting as soon as they see "afghanistan hour". It's all about ratings. Though there are other important things going on in the world and I disagree with 24-hour one-news coverage on the 2nd day this is the main event for the US at the moment and all other anchors are there.

This kind of event being Anderson's "speciality" must have been part of the decision, but not the only one. Hope it won't be another reason to point fingures at him for "emoting" on camera. I do hate that afghanistan reporting srambled, they'll just move it to another week.

ivy said...

I mean I hope they'll move it to another week

newsjunkie said...

This kind of reporting is definitely a new breed. The 360 blog is being continually updated with stories of what the people are seeing and feeling at the moment. It's practically unheard of- I guess that people want to hear from real people. I'm not so sure I like it. I'd rather just "get the facts, ma'am". I mean, I totally love that AC gives a flying crap about people but at the same time.... I don't know. Which would you rather see: "33 people are dead" or "Oh my GOD! It's terrible! 33 people have been killed!!" He is saying exactly what people are thinking but I'm sort of feeling that it can wreak havoc with people's already terrible emotional state from the story alone. If you want to calm people down, be calm. *sigh* and I like Anderson, too. Just sometimes, he's even too much for me.

(btw, I've been commenting anonymously for awhile, I've got to have a name so we know who is who. Therefore, I'm going to call myself newsjunkie, thanks)

ivy said...

@newsjunkie
I don't like to jump to conclusions before anything happened. AC often has well-balanced coverage without drowning the audience in his emotions. I don't want him to be judged for that just cause he's going there, we're yet to see his coverage. But I don't think he'll add anything to the story, him flying from the other side of the world is pointless from news perspective, cnn already has no less then 6-7 reporters there

Suzanne said...

Did you see some of the poet who spoke at the memoriial convocation today - her words - "We did nothing to deserve this, but neither did a child in Africa dying of AIDS". A very insightful statement and such a good reminder that while this is terrible there are other things just as terrible and unfair happening all over the world.

Still though, the loss of so much promise, so many dear ones, so many now broken families so close to our own homes.....it twists at the heart. And the inevitable question that is always asked echoes in your mind - why do bad things happen to good people? Especially good, young people who are at the brink of beginning full lifes with such hope and promise.

While the loss of each student/teacher/etc leaves such large holes in the families left behind, we are all diminished by the loss of such promise.

Suzanne said...

Anderson to anchor from Virginia tomorrow night according to John King at end of AC30 tonight.

Wasn't John King's reporter's notebook at the end of the show simply amazing? On par with Anderson's for sure.

newsjunkie said...

I think I'm just annoyed at CNN's decision because I wanted to see the coverage from Afganistan. However, this week would not be a good one to cover it because of Virginia Tech. But I think that he should have stayed where he was, done all the work this week and then presented it next week perhaps. I don't know how it works..... but I beleive that Anderson's "emoting" is what drives people in droves to watch him in the first place.

I am going to watch BBC now. Oh, and ABC, and NBC, and CBS... but not Faux. Hell no.

Anonymous said...

I checked my google alerts and there's all these people complaining about Anderson's coverage of the shootings and he wasn't even in Virginia or on TV!!!! One jerk said he "blazed on the scene"" WTF??? Jenn

Anonymous said...

WHAT? Seriously, some people ought to find something remarkable about their own lives to obsess over rather than worrying whether a stranger (Anderson)is doing his job.

newsjunkie said...

From the comments on the 360 Blog:

this "Anderson Cooper Fanatical Worship" thingey/stuff has GOT TO GO folks. AC is NOT a deity/god!! Get a life! More importantly, get a "mind of your own"!!
Posted By Sam, Houston, TX


AMEN BROTHER. Oh, wait, that sounds mean. I'm not bagging on AC. I think that his fan base is half insane though....

newsjunkie said...

Can someone please explain to me, why it took three days. Three days!

For three days, every single network has been blaring about Virginia Tech. BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and most likely FOX but I don't watch it. For three days, all we've heard was:

Cho.
Cho...
CHO!!!

As in, he was crazy, he was sadistic, he was hateful, he wrote evil plays, he stalked women, he was apparently a mental case.... CHO CHO CHO. For three days, let's talk about the madman that killed 32 people, and then himself.

It's things like THAT that make the copycats come out of their little caves.

I understand the focus, I do. When a plane or a bus crashes, it was an accident (usually). But this was deliberate and so it's much more of a big deal. And anything that happens on American Soil is so much more interesting to us, because "it could have happened to me!", as opposed to the people dying in droves in Afganistan, Iraq, etc., because it's far away and doesn't seem real.

But back to the three days.... why did it take three days before the media finally made a memorial to those who DIED? The victims! If the media would instead focus on the tragedy of those whose lives were needlessly taken instead of the murderer that did it, maybe the world would have more compassion. Maybe the people that are thinking about emulating it, wouldn't.

NBC has the best memorial so far. Go look. It's rather sobering to look into their faces and realize they are gone. Dead. Life torn from them. If you can look at those people and feel nothing- then you really need to turn off your televisions and reclaim your life.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the page to the NBC memorial, newsjunkie.

I wonder if there's an effort on the part of the 360 staff to tank a portion of the newscast and 100% discredit the blog. Seriously, is there another network on earth besides 360 bowing to an obviously middle-aged, underemployed, dumbed down serial viewer such as Betty Ann? She rambles on and on with supposed scenes correlating to each and every blog. If it isn't her sons wedding on Saturday, it's the years of abuse she suffered, the plight of the kids she has in college or her phony requests for info so that she can help. And how many times has Anderson read her ignorant rant on his show - too many to be by chance. From "I don't wanna" to "that precious child," it sounds as though a typical viewer of AC360 is going to next refer to their cement pond and Jethro as their mate.

newsjunkie said...

I've been wondering about Betty Anne and Lori Ann for a while. Their comments are read quite often, and are also posted very frequently. I don't understand the moderating process (for example, stupid rants get posted all the time, and also like the one the other day saying AC wasn't a god) and it seems they just pretty much let all the crazy people through and ignore the rest of us with brains in our heads.

It has also occurred to me that Betty Ann and Lori Ann aren't real people and someone inside CNN is a dumbass. (oh wait, I could point at quite a few people for that one). It seems that AC360 is the playground for every moronic idea they have back there. Let's fire the whole lot of them!

Anonymous said...

Google BettyAnn with city & state and you will find a rumpled mess of a middle-aged clod with a bad hairday and in a hot tub. She's alive and blogging on overdrive. Why AC360 gives her a platform is the reason I think someone at the network wants his credibility and numbers to remain lukewarm. My husband walked in the room last night when AC was reading Betty Ann's post. He asked if BettyAnn & BobbyJoe were regulars on 360. It never fails for him to walk in the room when Anderson is reading one of her ignorant posts. The best most recently was when she went on and on about the Podcast being way COOL and that AC360 was so COOL! There has to be a CNN-must-fail hopeful at the network. No other news anchor wants a demographic of tired, old bags, salivating at the mouth while talking bs from the 60's.

newsjunkie said...

No other news anchor wants a demographic of tired, old bags, salivating at the mouth while talking bs from the 60's.

That's hilarious.

And the podcast is lame. It's the same thing I can watch on my DVR whenever I want.

Tired, old bags, salivating at the mouth.... oh that is so gross. A 64 year old woman mentioned to me that she thought AC had "a cute little butt" and I nearly keeled over- that is GROSS lady, you could be his MOTHER. EW!! But then again, if that's why you have ratings, play it up homeboy. Flash those dimples and smile for the dirty old ladies (and apparently men) if that's what pays your check, right?

That's... pretty sad.

ivy said...

@anon 11:13

the main person who helps make his credebility and numbers lukewarm is David Doss.

Anonymous said...

I am quite upset at Anderson.

Yesterday he mentioned at least three or four times that if the women who had been stalked by Cho, had pressed charges the massacre would have never happened. WTF??? That is just insulting and very ignorant.

Instead of blaming Cho, he is indirectly blaming the victims. Brilliant, brilliant indeed!!! I hope he reconsiders his thoughts on this tonight.

ivy said...

@anon -he or anybody who's sayig that is not ignorant. It's absolutely correct. If these women pressed charges he would have never been able to buys guns legally. And the chances are he wouldn't seek to buy it illegaly for a few reasons.

newsjunkie said...

I, too, noticed he said that. I actually rewound it make sure I heard what he said. It is speculation, though. The police have their hands tied unless a direct threat is made. Even if he'd had charges filed against him, they'd have to prove he was a stalker, and then he'd have to be brought to court and found guilty before it would be in his record (and keep him from being able to legally buying a gun)- as far as I understand. So, there are a couple of issues here. One, just filing the charges wouldn't have stopped him. (and lots of people ignore restraining orders). And, doesn't matter. If he couldn't have bought a gun legally, he would have done it illegally. Or looked up on the internet how to make a bomb. You can make a bomb with stuff you find in your kitchen! Or stabbed people . The issue of "gun control" is retarded here. Crazy people can get a gun whether it's legal or not.

I don't think we should look backwards like that, at least not at that in particular. What I think we should look at is the police: Why did they not realize for quite some time that a massacre was happening right in front of them? Why, on the video, do you see them standing there doing nothing? WHY are they dragging people out but no one is running in? They should have been running IN and trying to find that F*CKER.

of course, maybe all that did happen and it hasn't been brought to light yet.

We'll see. I'm waiting.

ivy said...

@ anon12:38 One tmore thing, those women weren't among the victims, if you paid attention. Instead of "reconsidering his thoughts" I hope he talks more how police failed and not be afraid to admit that police doesn't automatically mean heroes. Even form what's already known it's pretty clear police screwed up big time.

ivy said...

@newsjunkie

you don't have to be convicted to have a record. Being arrested or going though the system on misdeaminor charges is enough to have a record, and that record would come up buying a gun. There were witnesses to stalking, it wasn't heresay, it charges were filed it would be a very different story. and please, let's not assume he would buy a gun illegally. I'ts not that easy as buy it legaly, the kid might have been a law abiding person and did everything "by the book" on a big scale. PLus when you're not a citizen and planning to become one you're very careful with the law. Yes, of couse, he might have want on the knife stabbing spree, but there wouldn't be as many victims, it's a lot easier to run from a knife then a gun. And let's admit- there are no mechanisms to deal with mentally ill and unstable people in this country, no mechanism to put them away or force treatment, that's one of the main issues

newsjunkie said...

Okay, let's start talking laws. Let's say this idiot had been convicted of a misdemeanor, which is what that would have been, unless he actually harmed someone. So he has a misdemeanor for a non-violent act (stalking/voyeurism). And then he goes to buy a gun.

Guess what. A misdemeanor of that class does not prohibit you from buying a gun legally in the many states, including Virginia.

Let's all freak on THAT one. And I looked at more than one site to find the gun laws for Virginia. If someone can find otherwise, please correct me.

I think I'm starting to support new gun laws. And the instant background check is bullsh*t because all it does is check for felonies. Like I've said maybe three times now, even if charges were pressed he wouldn't have had a felony (because of the nature of the charges) and would still have been able to buy those weapons. Even with a conviction of that misdemeanor!! Just having charges pressed means NOTHING. Conviction apparently wouldn't have meant much either.

ivy said...

@newsjunkie -I'll check info onthat. Even if so with charges pressed against him it could have brough other things about him to light and especilaly if he could buy a gun with misdemeanor charges that would point to a very serious issue about selling guns. Which does exist, but cause there were no charges and it's all in would-be categorie there won't be attention the issue deserves.

Anonymous said...

Ivy

Im sorry but there is enough blame to go around and it shouldn't be focused on those women. I paid attention to the coverage Ivy, and these women are victims of him as well. Instead of blaming them you should blame Cho, or the police or the university that knew he was crazy and did nothing. You dont know how these women felt or what went through their minds before making the decision to not press charges. Usually these allegations need to be proven and women prefer not to press charges to avoid having further contact with the stalker.

Anyways, I am sure you have set your mind on this but Anderson should be there to report facts not to interpret them and accuse these women without even knowing what went through their minds, its irresponsible and stupid. What is it now, are we going to start blaming victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse?

Cho was a sick man, and very determined, I highly doubt any actions by these women would have been able to stop him, especially since the university seemed so disconnected with what was happening and refused to kick him out. If you listened closely to the news yesterday a professor spoke up and said she felt afraid of him, to the point that Cho was kicked out of class. Did that change anything? NO! It just increased his paranoia and suicidal and homicidal ideations!

Its very sad that you are blaming them, very, very sad!!!!

Anonymous said...

Ivy

By the way, I know these women are not dead, therefore in your mind, they are not victims. But since apparently speculating is the same thing as reporting, let's just say that maybe if they had pressed charges, they would have also been shot dead. Would have that been a better story? Only then would they be victims and not perpetrators?

ivy said...

@anon- I have no clue where you got that they're the ones that are mainly blamed for this. Of course a nutjob killer is to blame, he's the one who did it. The point that was brought up - if the girls did press charges things might have been different. I don't see how that's stupid.

Why didn't police break through the doors or got through a first floor window is a very good question. It's not like there were no armed people on campus. You can see from the video police was all around the school, people had cell phones, so the floor where that was happening must have been known. People were jumping from windows. Why didn't police go in?? How did they get a warrant for a poor girl's boyfirend so fast? And still calling him a person of interest when the ballistics said one of the guns form first shooting matched one of Cho's guns. It really seems like they're trying to save the face now.

ivy said...

@2:48

where there are over 30 people dead and over a dozen wounded I call THEM victims. From all the witnesses accounts it seems nobody thought he's capable of killing somebody. So I doubt those girls thought he'll kill them. Nobody said it would be better if he did, thank god they're ok. You'll hear what you want to hear anyway.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to dismiss Cho as a nutjob or crazy instead of asking why he did the things he did. Not to make excuses, because what he did is horrible...but if you just brush it off as crazy, you don't explain his motives. Crazy is too easy.

newsjunkie said...

Crazy is too easy. Well, someone suggested a brain tumor. But the facts are that people that do these types of this ARE crazy. But not all crazy people do these things.

It's like that Logic equation.... something along the lines of "All blue flowers are tulips, and the other flowers are roses. So if it's blue it is not a rose." Ok well I put that into my own words but hopefully you get the point. I got an A in Philosophy of Logic but that doesn't mean I can explain it!

Anonymous said...

Again, I'll say crazy is too easy. People who do these kinds of things are not necessarily crazy. Depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, whatever it might be...but not necessarily crazy. Most serial murderers or spree killers are not crazy.

newsjunkie said...

"Crazy" means "dissociated from reality", as in, it's not real to them anymore. It's all in their head. Depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic people are not necessary at a loss of their grip. Depressed/bi-polar/manic/hypomanic people have mood issues. Frequently schizophrenics hear voices, think the government is after them, or think they were abducted by aliens. I don't know about you, but that sounds crazy.

Plus I disagree. A normal, sane person wouldn't do something like that because they know that it's wrong. Therefore, he couldn't have been sane. The opposite of sane, is crazy.

Anonymous said...

This guy was severly disturbed, determined and organized. His thought process was compromised, he was delusional and paranoid.

Yes he is crazy, and yes he is 100% responsible for his actions, all of us are, crazy or not. Others could have done something for him? Yes, maybe. But he is still 100% responsible for what he did.

I agree with one of the descriptions of him on wednesday night, not only his mind was sick, his soul was very sick also.

I have decided to stop blogging about him, the bastard does not deserve the attention!

ivy said...

How in the world ac360 has a segment about Baldwin's phone call right after half-hour or Vtech coverage, before they had anything on iraq or political debates that are going on now. 198 people being killed in iraq in one day was a one liner the other day, and still didn't talk about situation there in more detail. Yesterday at least 4! reports about vtech were repeated in the 2nd hour. And now Alec Baldwin? Their priorities are all screwed up. Did somebody mention credibility?

newsjunkie said...

All the producers of this show have their heads up their asses.

Anonymous said...

" no to put unnecessary pressure on them, but if they had...." Anderson Cooper

And yet AGAIN Anderson mentioned the two stalked girls and how their actions could have alerted the police.

"Unnecesarry", Anderson? Really? Anderson is projecting his fears and feelings toward this women. He is stalked, yet he does not file a report, he is outed in every gay magazine, and yet he does not do anything about it, and he is a 40 year old man (well at least that's his chronological age, mental age I'm not that sure right now).

Now, imagine some young college girls filling charges. At least they called the police, Anderson has not been that brave!!!

These girls have the same right of doing nothing as Anderson has of doing nothing. But apparently there is s double standard. These people who have stalked Anderson can be serial killers to, and he is as responsible as these girls are then. It is unfair for these girls and their families to listen to what he is saying about them. I hope they take action and sue CNN! I get it, it is important to let people know they should take action, but this information can be shared in a different way, without placing blame on these young girls.

Anderson just please just shut up and go back to what apparently you do best, reporting the mishaps of celebrities!

Anonymous said...

you're right, anon 4:45, and maybe the first to approach this topic so eloquently. Anderson indeed created this double standard. He continues to allow it to play a part in his life, too. There have been many times on CNN where he said he was stalked. He referred to being stalked in articles. As for the gay rants and front page news on gay mags, he says zilch except to Po for the Men's Mag article. While some poke fun at him and say his career is stagnant due to ignoring the topic, he continues to see where others fall short.

Anonymous said...

anon 5:23

Thanks anon, it is highly unusual for people to be objective when it comes to Anderson. Most people usually praise whatever he says and does without even stopping and thinking about the consequences of his words and actions. I feel so upset I can't even start to describe how I feel.

Thanks again.

newsjunkie said...

Hey anon 4:45, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. He does indeed, seem to be pointing the finger, and yet he himself sits there and does nothing because apparently, he is too polite.

However, we can say that all we want and we really don't know anything at all about Anderson, do we? That's the problem. DON'T LET YOUR IMAGINATION FILL IN THE BLANKS. We have no idea what he is up to, what he thinks, or how he feels about anything. And you know, the same goes for those girls that we are actually talking about! We have no idea how they felt, what they did, what CHO actually did anyway (although they're going to analyze it in excruciating detail for us, I'm sure). All the latest comments here are doing what we abhor most- analyzing incomplete information, hypothesizing with no facts, and speculating by imagining the rest.

Everyone is doing just that about those girls, about CHO, about anything they don't know anything about, like Anderson. Until he says what's up, I don't believe a damn thing anyone says about him. As for his career stagnating, as long as his half-baked fans continue to worship and adore him, it's not going anywhere.

And I will also agree with you that he should just shuddup and stop projecting his own fears on what he's seeing. Chronological age: almost forty. Mental age: thirty. Emotionally: apparently about ten, and with an ego that could fill the room. Of course, I like him, but hey, he's not perfect, now is he?

Anonymous said...

@ newsjunkie

You are right, we don't know who Anderson is or what he does.The only thing we know is what comes out of his mouth, and this past week, well..his words were not that wise or considerate imho!

Anon 4:45

Anonymous said...

That's for certain - we only know for sure what Anderson says, which is very very limited, and some of which coincides and clashes with things he says on other occasions. I think one of the major faux pas this week was his finger pointing at two girls he knows absolutely nothing about. All of a sudden he was interjecting HIS opinion big time and in regards to a topic that's foreign to him. We might not know anything about Anderson, but we do know how we feel when a news anchor we feel partial to is throwing assumptions to the wind and voicing scenarios that could have halted the disaster. That's about as brilliant as having Betty Ann and Lorie Ann at the helm of the 360 blog.

ivy said...

Anderson is 100% right about the girls who didn't press charges, and I'm happy he is bringing that up. It has nothing to do with their motives, it has to do with the simple fact that if they did that, the chance of influencing that situation would be a lot better. We have no idea what form of stalking ac dealt with and how distuerbing or not it was, he's a public figure so there's a different tolerance threshold there. girls were bothered enough to get police involved, we have no idea if Anderson was bothered to the same extent. By bringing this up he didn't project his own opinion, he merely stated what a lot of people noticed and are talking about, it's one of the factors that could make a difference. And to compare responce to stalking to a responce to demands to disclose his personal life - how pathetic.

You're lucky he's not brining up what a lot of people are talking about -- how so many students - there must have been a 100 in a class didn't do anything to protect themselves from one physically weak guy, even though with 2 guns. apart from a few people of course. I'm not blaming the victims in any way but it's an obvious question. Unfortunately our society's sign -to think about yourself and let others take about themselves. Hopefully you won't be the one something bad happens to. And inability to organize yourselves and do something collectively.

ivy said...

@newsjunkie

Do you really think adoring fans are so influential to be a main reason of anybody's career stagnation? You're recommending others to stop assuming things and "imagining the rest" without having enough information about the subject - yet you're making conclusions (and present it as a fact) about mental and emotional age of a person you don't know and have mostly information he decided to make public.

newsjunkie said...

Okay then I will just point out that the mental and emotional age are my own opinion, based on what I see, hear, and read. Based without fact? Yup. Don't know anymore than you do. But he seems like a pretty nice guy, just sorta immature in some ways. But it's like the moon- you can only see the front and then theorize what the back is like. And I could be totally and completely incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Ivy

It's really not that suprising that you share Anderson's point of view, because now you are actually blaming the other victims, the ones that actually got shot.
Look I hope you never have to go through such a horrible thing like this.

A guy with enough anger and two guns is not a weak guy. I know of an instance that a very small framed mentally ill patient was enough to kill several tall and well built men. There is a strength that comes with bottled anger that is not that easy to control. Ask any psychologist or psychiatrist, things are a lot more complex in the real world!

There is no way of knowing how you would have reacted in a situation like this. And I think we are just telling you that its best not to judge.

I pray you never have to go through a situation that really humbles you to the extent to understand you should not judge others, especially victims,when you know nothing about their circumstances and what they went through. What you are doing is as brilliant as what Bush is doing in Iraq/Afghnaistan, misinterpreting events because you feel you can do better. We all need some more compassion in our lives towards those that are hurting, respecting peoples right to be different from what we expect of them.

Please, before reacting to this e-mail think about it, would you like your mother, sister or brother to be blamed, knowing they were victims of a situation like this? EVERYONE does the best they can, to the best of their abilities, the JUDGING leave it to GOD, PLEASE!

Following your line of thought people could actually blame G.V. for not rescuing her son from suicide that day. Would that be fair? NO! Absolutely not!

P.S. You should also cut newsjunkie some slack.Yoou see Anderson has now taught us to speculate over someones emotional state and obligationss. So if he does it, newsjunkie is also alllowed to do the same regarding Anderson!!! And so am I!

Anonymous said...

100% of my earnings are determined by my ability to maneuver properly within the parameters of the US Court system. I can comfortably say after 8 yrs of higher ed and 15 years entrenched in the legal system professionally, that those girls would have been wasting their time and breath in any effort to convict Cho. From every account I've read, Cho did not threaten them or physically harm them. Just because one is a creep, a loner,physically blah and a pain in the ass, does not equate to the obtainment of a criminal record. If that were the case, millions of females would have a "case" against a guy, especially girls on campus where there are frats. The legal system is inundated with true crimes that were committed. I know many judges who would throw a file such as that clear out of the courtroom. When there's a Columbia student that had her eyelids slit, repeatedly raped, burned, scalded, tortured and set on fire while tied to a futon, a guy sending weird IM's and showing up to see a girl is nothing. There are only so many lawyers and so much time. It's reality and Anderson should know better. His legal analyst out of Harvard learned that fact in a multitude of first year Law School classes.

Anonymous said...

Hey, where's SHARLA DAWN/JONES been? I hope she hasn't moved on from here. I miss her scientific mind and always clever posts. I'm curious to hear her perspective. Also, Sharla is never afraid to speak her mind.

Anonymous said...

"And to compare responce to stalking to a responce to demands to disclose his personal life - how pathetic. "

Sorry, but the continous baggering regarding his sexual identity can be considered a form of stalking
and he CHOOSES to do nothing about it. That is his CHOICE, as well as other people are allowed to make their own CHOICES too. There should be no double standard when it comes to Anderson!

@ Christian

I would love to hear your opinion on this subject (placing blame on these two young girls).

newsjunkie said...

Anon 6:41- gee, I don't sound familiar? Let's all pretend we don't know, thanks :)

newsjunkie said...

Anon 6:34- I believe I said something like that earlier, about how we don't know what would have happened (if anything)! To show a case in point, I'll interject myself personally (wonder where I got that idea), and tell you a story about how this particular speculation is bullshit.

When I was 25 I had a voyeur. I didn't know it, either, till it was too late. See, this guy, watched me all the time, became fixated on me, and decided in his delusion that I was sending him messages that we were perfect for each other. One day he just walked into my house. I was so shocked I hit him and flung him out my front door. The look on his face was "mystified"; he couldn't imagine why the object of his desire had reacted negatively. I called the police. He got arrested. Then I pressed charges, he got convicted of a misdemeanor, and get this- nothing happened. He didn't have to surrender his guns (everyone in that state has guns everywhere), he didn't have to move out of the complex (I moved, duh!), and well, his wife left him (good for her). But that was my point earlier- because he hadn't committed a violent act (just B&E and Voyeurism)- the gun thing? Still had them, could still buy them. That's what I was trying to point out earlier- POINTLESS to stare at that particular story like that.

Unfortunately, many people in celebrity status, be it Anderson (whom is the subject of this blog), Bjork, Angelina Jolie, Jake Shears, whatever- people can obsess over them and if they're slightly cracked to begin with, they can go completely over the edge and think "if I just meet them, something magical will happen". Yeah, whatever. I don't need to meet the man, personally. What for? What's that going to add to my life? That I got to shake his hand? Oh goodie big deal! I can think of a whole bunch of people that would add to my life that I would like to meet. (and don't think I hate Anderson, okay? I don't. I like him just fine. I just don't worship the ground he walks on and think he's God.) If I sound annoyed it's not at HIM, or the comments HERE, okay? It's because I'm studying insanely the laws of thermodynamics and my head hurts.

newsjunkie said...

Hey... some people make public profiles at Amazon... and probably wouldn't mind saying hello, Anon 6:41! Imagine that.....

ivy said...

@anon 6:51 - I was answering one of anons who brough up the topic. I agree with you

@6:24 - alot of people talk about how many people there were and how only very few did anything to protect themselves and the rest. I'm not blaming anybody individually, of course not people who were shot, and for sure not saying that I would be any different. But it's still to me raising a quesition about the society which I'm part of.

Anonymous said...

newsjunkie, sooo glad you're still around. Public profiles... - this techie stuff is beyond me. I still dictate memos.
Ivy, it should be a concern of ours that no one besides the 76 yr old Holocaust survivor tried to deter Cho and save his classmates. I don't know if it's because of our safe nation or the fact that we're 'all about me'. You're not alone. A college in NY is already having simulations on how to respond to a similar situation.

newsjunkie said...

Hey anon, the point of having a public profile is that the person's personal contact information is occasionally listed on it. You know, in case someone would like to talk to them directly, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? lol, geez :)

Anonymous said...

The 50 million thing is a lie by Klein to try and bump the ratings and hype around 360.

Maybe Anderson should stop having sexual relations with women while pretending to be a gay man (because 80% of his fan base is gay men) and then going public with the information on late night TV, then when she wants to see him again, slander her by calling her a stalker. He should have been mature enough to tell her he didn't want to see her again. He's a jerk just like every other man.

Oh and he won't go to the police with his "stalker" because you have to prove that you didn't encourage them by sexual contact seen by witnesses, emails saying "I totally thought of you" and going public with the "kissing somebody". It wasn't very nice to lie about emails that she didn't send and phone calls that she didn't make either, both of which can be proven.

You may as well know the truth. He is the one with some mental problems and yes, he's emotionally retarded.

newsjunkie said...

Wow anon 7:07, did you smoke crack before or after you wrote that up?

The emotionally retarded one here, is YOU.

Plus I can't imagine AC saying "totally" in a statement. He's too old plus he's not from California. That's about as dumb as accusing him of saying, "like, totally dude! she like, likes me!"

Anonymous said...

anon 7:07

Try again, and this time be coherent please!

dora the explorer said...

@7:07

Can you please share the name nd date of the late night show you're talking about? Does the mysterious "she" live in NOLA or NY or somewhere else to your knowlege?

Anonymous said...

you know if you go into a certain gay bar in new york city everysingle man in there will tell you they know someone who slept with the guy i swaer and theyll also tell you details about how he is bad kisser and stuff. and now half the blogs have at least on person saying they dated and they are men and women too. sure yeah right i've also hear heard hes the forty year old virgin. this is dumb.

Anonymous said...

Uh-oh - sounds like this blog has been infiltrated by a reptile...

newsjunkie said...

Oh good god, trolls! Yay! Hey- this is a serious blog about Anderson Cooper. You want to make up shit and fling accusations plus load the net with delusions and your opinion on Cooper's sexuality- go do it somewhere ELSE.

Anonymous said...

@5:12 who knew!

courtney01 said...

Stop the name calling right now.

Just because someone makes allegations and you don't agree with them does not give you the right to call them names. Feel free to disagree, but take the name calling elsewhere.

Be civilized, please.

newsjunkie said...

Yes, calling each other names is not very nice.... I have no idea what AC is like. What anon 7:07 said could actually be completely true for all I know. Or it could be completely false or a mix of both. Regardless, insulting that person wasn't very nice of me. Sorry.

I would like this discussion to go back to NOT talking about all of that, though.... I come here to read conversation about the media and Anderson as a journalist, not endless speculation about other stuff. I could go read a whole bunch of other blogs for that (no thank you).

courtney01 said...

http://www.alternet.org/stories/50758/

newsjunkie said...

Wow Courtney, that article was GREAT! (and LONG). I'm now very curious about the professor at Emmanuel College that was fired for talking about this. We were sitting in class talking about it on Friday- and we weren't all agreeing with each other on everything but one thing everyone seemed to agree on was my statement to the media about it:

WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP THRASHING THE HELL OUT OF THIS STORY, AND STOP SQUEEZING EVERY DROP OF LIFE AND BLOOD FROM THESE PEOPLE LIKE VULTURES AND JUST LET THEM HEAL IN PEACE INSTEAD OF SPLATTING IT ALL OVER THE TV?

I mean seriously. I think I've now seen nine hundred posts/weblinks/tv shots of "Hokies Heal" or "first day of classes somber". It's terrible how pain and tragedy is torn apart in gruesome detail for everyone to stare at. Even Anderson did it- "Can you imagine what that first class this morning must have been like for teachers and for students?" Hey yeah- they probably would have been better if they weren't being followed around by you guys....

I wouldn't want my personal pain all over the world for everyone to see. Would YOU? I saw quite a few signs posted up saying "media go away!" and the like. It's terrible. My favorite question of all, is when they stick the mic in the person's face and say "how you do you feel about...." gee, how do you THINK they feel??? *mutter mutter*

Anonymous said...

I agree CNN and AC360 should stop milking this and allow these people to breathe. I think they have reached an ultimate low, they have become as sensationalist and insensitive as other news networks!!

Anonymous said...

I was surprised by Anderson not catching his own words midair. He asked Gary if VT was tired of the media, yet he forgot that tiny detail...HE is media. He said it himself, 5 of the 12,000 the Univ. accepted will not attend due to last Monday. Only 5 kids. Human resiliency has flown over the radar of Anderson and CNN. I know several kids are still planning on applying there for vet school. And enough of skirting by the issue of those girls being stalked. It's time to move on and allow that community to go about their lives outside of the media's radar.

newsjunkie said...

Does everyone recall a few days back, the discussion about how Cho would have been able to buy a weapon anyway even if the girls had done... whatever.... and the response was skeptical about the facts I stated? Well, you're in luck. CNN has posted a story confirming the facts I presented here. Have a read....

And yes, sometimes I think the media forgets they are "the media". I believe it may be possible to just focus so much on the job you're doing that you could lose your human side and forget about the people involved. I couldn't help but think of Carter Cooper's death. What did Anderson do? Shielded his mother from the press. Of course he did. To me personally, the story is NOT more important than the people in it and the pain they are feeling doesn't need to be exploited. Reported briefly, sure. But slammed over and over and over again.... no, that's enough.

Anonymous said...

@ newsjunkie

That's what I have been saying all along, its unfair to speculate what could have happened at the expense of other peoples pain. I used to like Anderson because he was so considerate, lately this has not been the case. HE SHOULD TAKE A HUMBLE BATH! Yesterday, after I saw Gary's report I changed the channel, I just couldn't take it anymore!

I emalied CNN last week and told them that what they were saying about those girls was highly insensitive and speculative at most. Guess What? THEY DID NOT CARE. They continued to judge these people over and over again! APPARENTLY BLAMING THE VICTIMS IS A LOT MORE COST EFECTIVE THAN SIMPLY REPORTING THE FACTS!

Anonymous said...

Newsjunkie and anonymous 11:37 ~ maybe the snarkish press, coupled with obnoxious articles describing his shower attire, beyond lifesize billboards in striking poses and all that is finally getting to AC in such a way that he's lost some of his considerate mannerisms. He can say all he wants, he doesn't read nor care what is said about him...but at the end of the day, it's difficult to ignore the hype in all its formats. How many times can he be criticized on one front, idolized on the other - without getting repulsed hearing his name over and over again, daily? While his ego might fill a room, filling North America and all its versions of speculation and interest might be a stretch.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:03

I agree with you and I am saddened with all of this because I normally liked Cooper, I just don't know what's happening with him lately...

newsjunkie said...

Well personally I think he's physically looked like crap lately. He's so thin his clothes aren't fitting right, he's got bags under his eyes, I swear his hair is falling out, and he looks like he aged overnight.

A person in some sort of distress, whether it's work stress, emotional stress, relationship stress, whatever, usually will show it on the outside if it's really hurting them. So he could be going through his own issues, you never know.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I agree with newsjunkie, he looks stresed amd worn out! If only he could take a vacation. Anderson, Vacation=Rest=no work!

Anonymous said...

heh - Anon7:07 is posting her fantasy affair all over the internet now. Check out the Janet post about showering in underwear - she's there, claiming to have reproduced! A little mini-Cooper, how dear!

newsjunkie said...

Yeah, he needs a vacation anon 6:42! And I mean a real vacation, where you just sort of putter around your house and do nothing except dance around in your underwear while listening to your iPod.

Okay so that's what I do. But it's fun :)

Anonymous said...

Aww, a mini Cooper, no wonder Anderson looks so tired and stressed!!!And then people wonder where Anderson gets the impression his fans are crazy!!!!LOL

Christiane said...

Hi everyone!
I'm very happy with the length and depth of this conversation.

Victims have the rough deal. It is not easy to go through the legal procedures and re-living the entire situation over and over again. And many law enforcers are not as kind as Benson and Stabler from L&O SVU. Personally I think it is cheap to blame the victim.

About Anderson Cooper, we don't know which measures CNN and himself have done about his stalkers and security measures. At least he has a driver/bodyguard sometimes. Which is a start.

ivy said...

60 minutes had a very good piece about the correlation between the mind of assassins and mass murderers, and the common features and causes most of theem have. Being mentally unstable or ill is not one of them. It made the same point as the article Courtney linked. In Chos case though I do think he was mentally ill it's far from the only thing that media should have paid attention to. And IMHO the reason why media didn't try to go deeper with issues is becasue he's south-korean. That makes it very easy to write him off as a foreign wierd unexplainable type. I bet if he was a regular suburban white kid his prior school and family history would be a lot more in focus.

MANIFESTO

Don't think for me. Don't assume what I want to hear or read. Give me facts. Give me reasons. But not yours. Bring me debate. Enlighten me. Today, accountability is masked behind anonymity; bylines are hidden by zeros and ones. Everyone publishes; everyone is "in the know." Ethics are non-existent. Speculation is king. The truth is masked and a hostage. Empowered by our minds, WE ARE THE FREAKSPEAKERS!

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental, political, news and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this blog is distributed and available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

If your obsession against us and our content endures, you might find more information at: Law.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the blog owner.