NBC News Reporter Does Perfectly Normal Interview and Fellow Journos Freak Out Anyway

NBC News reporter Dasha Burns interviewed Democratic Pennsylvania candidate John Fetterman, who required closed captioning as an aid in their discussion due to an auditory problem resulting from a stroke. A fact, Burns fatefully observed, that was borne out by his increased difficulty in conversation without said aid. Her reporting appeared on NBC News and MSNBC, and she and other NBC News journalists tweeted about the interview.

Burns’ comments ahead of the airing of the full interview did not question Fetterman’s fitness for office, nor imply anyone should doubt his mental acuity or ability to do the job.

To the extent that she remarked on his difficulty with a conversation without closed captioning, it only confirmed what he told them himself about his condition. That is, that he has had difficulty without the closed captioning. Which he said. Which she said.

Nevertheless, after critics of Fetterman repeated that info with their own spin, blue check journo Twitter unleashed a fatwa against Burns that would make the Ayatollah blush.

“In small talk before the interview without captioning, it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.” That’s the line that launched a thousand meltdowns.

Journalist Kara Swisher, famed podcaster and the co-founder of Recode, was prominently featured in the blue check backlash against the neutral observation by Burns, and her tweets became a big part of the story overnight, including some she deleted.

Swisher’s reactions were prime examples of the whole genre of outrage, and several of them were piled onto by other members of the media and prominent Democrats.

The tentpoles of the method were:

1. Saying their own experience was different.
2. Using that difference as a means to question the competence and integrity of Burns and her colleagues.
3. Relating the first two things to being insensitive or ableist.

It is useful here to remember that what Burns actually neutrally observed was that the thing Fetterman said about himself appeared, to her, to be accurate.

She did not state or imply he was unfit for office, was impaired or mentally unsound, or suggest that accommodating his needs for the interview was inconvenient or weird or frightening or evil or proof that Trump won the 2020 election.

And, apart from the comments ahead of the interview that sparked the revolt, it’s worth pointing out that during the interview itself the reporter similarly pursued a very normal, almost routine series of questions on an obvious subject, for which the candidate was prepared and had every reason to expect. Burns asked Fetterman directly about rhetoric from his opponent, Republican Mehmet Oz, on the subject of fitness for office. Likewise, she asked Fetterman about disclosing his medical records. These are, again, questions that Fetterman has previously been asked, and are to be expected.

Still, Kara Swisher was outraged. As were countless other blue check journos with varying degrees of platform-having. It was a fest. A smorgasbord. A swarm. A fury. A herd? I’m not sure what the correct term is for a grouping of angry, Democrat-aligned, blue check journos, obviously, but you get the idea. An obstinacy of them?

Anyway, the reason for it is obvious. Not rejecting ableism or any high-minded but inapplicable Cause. It’s that Fetterman is a Democrat.

No no, I know, I know. I know how that sentence just hit.

Whenever someone on the right says that the media is biased toward Democrats the eye-rolling starts. The sighing. The “omg this again”-ing. The media are exhausted by this accusation. It’s ‘working the ref,’ they say, or it’s lazy of Republicans to blame the press for just doing their job and telling the truth. After all, they argue, it’s not the media’s fault Republicans say or do the things they do or say. Instead of attacking reporters, they argue, why not address the actual issue? Why presume that just because a reporter or anchor challenges a Republican that they’re biased against that Republican, or Republicans in general? In other words, the press would very much like you to understand that asking real questions or tough questions of a Republican, or even confronting one on a touchy subject, is not evidence of bias but simply the pursuit of journalistic aims.

Interesting. Now imagine that paragraph with the parties reversed. Now look at the swarming of Dasha Burns.

Now go forth and sin no more, hmm?

Fetterman is an unconventional candidate. In fact, that has been his primary packaging from day one. That’s his campaign’s presentation of his political space. Describing him that way is not only not ableist, it’s on-brand.

In light of the ginned-up controversy of her perfectly neutral, non-objectionable, observational and journalistic description of her reasonable interview, Burns had to go on defense on Twitter, Wednesday. It remains to be seen how far the two-minutes hate will go in exacting a pound of flesh, but it has already reached the point that the words “reporters pounce” seem more than applicable.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.