Show da Rage

The MSM has beatified CNN anchor Anderson Cooper who has been very emotional in his Hurricane Katrina coverage famously upbraiding Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana for thanking federal rescue workers. Mary Jensen of the NY Times wrote a glowing piece on Cooper yesterday calling him "an anchor who wears his heart on his sleeve."

Drudge has reported that Michael Kinsley, the editorial chief of the LA Times, writes that guests appearing on CNN are being told to 'get angry':

Kinsley writes:

"The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to 'get angry.'"

I don't know how the chronology worked here - most likely its the fact that CNN realized what a 'hit' Cooper has become and is trying to ride the wave. It certainly does not excuse CNN coaching folks to behave a certain way. And I bet it was "get angry at the Bush administration."

HT to Powerline where Deacon writes:

Cooper and his employer embody the bias, ignorance, and opportunism that is sinking the MSM. Like the authors of a fancy advertising campaign (and Curly in the movie "City Slickers"), they want the hurricane coverage to be about one thing -- in this case, anger at the Bush administration's response. The fact that Cooper has seen dead bodies during the biggest natural disaster to hit this country in decades becomes the pretext for ruling out any attempt to analyze, or in Landrieu's case even mention in a positive light, the massive federal relief effort. Outsiders brought in by CNN to discuss the matter are instructed to stay on message.

Without experiencing the death of a loved-one, Cooper has managed to become the Cindy Sheehan of Hurricane Katrina. Because he saw dead bodies, he asserts the "moral authority" to dish out blame without analysis and without rejoinder. He cannot (or does not wish to) distinguish between his anger and the story. Nor, given the attitude of his network, would it be in Cooper's interest to make that distinction.