The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Amanpour’s ‘This Week’ continues to receive negative reviews as viewers express desire for Tapper’s return

After manning the helm of ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday for the second time since her August 1 debut, longtime foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour continues to receive decidedly negative reviews.

Amanpour replaced George Stephanopoulos, who left his post at “This Week” in January for a new gig at “Good Morning America.” Since Amanpour was announced as Stephanopoulos’ permanent replacement, ABC has portrayed her as a fresh faced alternative to the Washington echochamber, a citizen of the world complete with a foreign accent and a well-inked passport.

Yet this reputed outsider is at this moment rumored to be staying with uber-Washington insiders Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn at their Georgetown mansion while she looks for a permanent residence in the city.

The new host has expressed her desire to bring a more international flare to the show. “I’m excited about having this platform to explore the issues that affect Americans,” she told TVnewser after her first show. “I want to open the window on the world to help with the understanding of all of the global challenges out there.” The show has even embraced a new tagline, more suited to its host’s strengths,“from all across our world to the heart of our nation’s capital.”

Tom Shales, Washington Post style columnist, was one of the many mainstream critics who railed on her debut August 1 performance, calling her “miscast,” “shrill,” and “showy” — descriptions some have criticized as sexist. His sharpest critique, however, was the accusation that Amanpour meant to give her respects to the Taliban during the show’s “In Memoriam” segment. “Perhaps in keeping with the newly globalized program, the commendable ‘In Memoriam’ segment ended with a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week but rather, said Amanpour in her narration, in remembrance of ‘all of those who died in war’ in that period,” he wrote. “Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?”

Viewer commentary after the first two shows that flooded message boards, Twitter, and Facebook, has been similarly negative. “I’ll have to find something else to watch on Sunday morning. I can’t stand to listen to the new host. I also want to know what happened to the ‘round table,’” wrote mlw777888 in the comment section on the show’s webpage. “The table that they have now is as lopsided as the opinions.”

Jdbradley123 on the same site pined for Jake Tapper’s return. “Amanpour is unwatchable and so is the show now. George Will looked like he could not wait to get out of there. Jake Tapper was doing a good job and now we get stuck with this? Amanpour can not be even remotely objective as she was fawning over everything Krugman was saying.”

Reaction on Twitter followed suit. “If I haven’t mentioned it before, Christiane Amanpour is a blithering idiot and a caricature of a journalist. What drivel,” posted MrsDigger.

Glenasbury, expressed the general tenor of the Twitter mood writing, “I know it’s only two weeks in, but I’m pretty sure Christiane Amanpour doesn’t cut it for me.”

  • Pingback: Obama economic adviser says U.S. needs to spend more on infrastructure and ultimately education to turn economy around | Daily Loaf

  • sunnyr

    I deleted This Week from my TIVO the day this radical Leftist took the helm. I will NEVER watch this idiot and will only tune in again when she is gone!

  • wire-paladin

    People still watch the fictional ABC News? it’s a good place for a laugh!

  • mibwilso

    Hey conservatives, there’s a pretty simple solution to all of this perceive “media bias”:

    Try having your leaders go onto talk shows armed with actual, substantiated facts so they don’t get picked apart by run-of-the-mill questioning from reporters.

    Paul Ryan does a good job of this. But others (like Rand Paul, Boehner, and others) just go on these shows with talking points and demagoguery and then whine about bias when they get questioned on it.

    • masanf

      Amanpour’s political views are well-known, so you can stop with the “Conservatives call anyone who asks hard questions biased and anti-American” garbage. I am pretty sure people call Amanpour anti-American because she has a history of making anti-American statements. Imagine that. Furthermore, anyone implying that only Republicans spout talking points when questioned is a complete moron not fit to be taken seriously.

    • JSBrad

      I think you make a good point mibwilso. Conservative leaders should be more prepared when going on interviews. But when they give there talking points or opinion on issues and they are rebutted by the “media” with liberal talking points and opinions, that’s when media bias rears its ugly face. Its a two way street and our politicians and media should be more honest and quit politicizing everything. Its our job to hold politicians accountable. But now we have to hold the media accountable too.

  • mibwilso

    Apparently, any reporter who doesn’t have a jingoistic, America-centric attitude is “far left”. Nonsense.

    I’ve found Christiane Amanpour to be a pretty fair-minded reporter. The reason a lot of people don’t seem to like her is because she’s not busy sucking up to the Washington party leaders like the other Sunday hosts.

    I’ve regularly watched her work on CNN and have seen her do aggressive interviews with politicians on both the far left AND the far right. She’s done some pretty masterful take-downs of dictators like Robert Mugabe and others.

    So, in my view, she’s hardly a shill for the far left.

    The other Sunday shows are embarassing to watch at times because it feels like they’re tip-toeing around the hard questions for fear of being called “biased”.

    The job of a news anchor is to inform the public, not to be “polite” with the guests.

    • des1

      Most people don’t like to brag about being so clueless, but if it makes you happy, go for it.

  • Hunter A

    Where is her burqa?

  • billbrady

    Preaching socialism with a “foreign accent and well-inked passport” still doesn’t cut it does it? ABC simply refuses to relinquish it’s far left status.

    • mibwilso

      Any evidence of her preaching socialism? Can you even name one instance? Or is this just a case of “see what you want to see”?

      • AlexZ

        It’s the foreign accent that really stirs ‘em up you know. This is a xenophobic group.

        • des1

          There’s the Liberal way. When the facts aren’t on your side, call your opponents racists.

          Gee I admire your intellectualism so…{/sarcasm}

          • AlexZ

            Don’t be a child. Your reply to mibwilso above wasn’t exactly factual or intellectual, des. But it’s pretty much the the right wing nutter way to insult when he has nothing to say, right?

            Plenty of people in this thread have commented on her foreigness, her accent.

            And by the way the words xenophobia and racism are not interchangeable. Try to think things through before you post.

          • anniebanannie

            “But it’s pretty much the the right wing nutter way to insult when he has nothing to say, right?”

            “Try to think things through before you post.”

            Were you talking into a mirror when you posted that?

          • des1

            “And by the way the words xenophobia and racism are not interchangeable. Try to think things through before you post.”

            Nice try, but Liberals use the two interchangeably, and I’m pretty sure that was the implication in your comment. If she had an Italian accent, I doubt you’d be talking about our “xenophobia.”

          • AlexZ

            Um, I probably would.

        • masanf

          Hahahaha, a guy who deploys the tired old charge of xenophobia insulting someone for using the same tired old insults. I suppose next you are going to tell us calling someone a nutter is the height of intellectualism. I guess “wanker” is too lowbrow.

          • thephranc

            Knob head muppet.

          • AlexZ

            The man was generalizing about what liberals do, and so I was making my equally silly generalization. I know binary thinkers like you have difficulty with subtleties like sarcasm. Next time I’ll at the the little wink emoticon for your benefit.

          • AlexZ

            “at” should have been “add”

            Plus, I’m sorry, but if you can’t see the xenophobic attitudes that pervade the comments on the site, you’re blind. Maybe from wanking.

          • theprofessor

            If all else fails, claim subtle sarcasm.

            Then contradict yourself with a follow-up post indicating you meant every word about xenophobic attitudes.

          • AlexZ

            The insult/nutter comment was sarcasm after des’s “liberal way” comment.

            And yes, I mean there’s lots of xenophobia in the comments.

            Try to follow the conversation, prof, and maybe try to have something of substance to say.

  • american10

    STRATEGIC MANEUVER DECODED!!!!! Try as they will, they have lost the narrative, new faces, different strategies……DEBUNK!!! People are tired of being coaxed into the human trap of socialism, visualize a mouse trap, baited with succulent cheese, the wise mouse or human will shy away……..GET IT!!!!!

  • AlexZ

    It’s an OPINION show, not a NEWS show. Always has been. No one is forcing you to watch it; there are alternatives.

    Meanwhile, this DailyCaller article is one sided. Shales expressed his disdain for ABC’s choice well before Amanpour’s debut, so his “review” wasn’t exactly a surprise. He probably had it written before the show aired. Yes, plenty of people don’t like Amanpour, but Shales was villified for his review by many others. And what’s with quoting random tweets and blog comments to support the story? That’s ridiculous.

    Yes, Amanpour received negative reviews. She also received positive reviews. You’d never know it by reading this article. If you want to rail against one-sided reporting, you don’t have to go all the way to ABC to do it. You’ve got it right here.

    • des1

      It’s an opinion show that purports to show both sides of the issue, nitwit. If you weren’t so busy trying to defend this proven liar you might have realized that ABC doesn’t advertise the show as Leftist propaganda, therefore people who don’t want it are rightfully feeling annoyed.

      It’s ok, her ratings are way down in week two. That’s what happens when you put a low rated host from a low rated network with an arrogant dislike for over half the country on national TV. In two months, they’ll be wistfully dreaming of Contessa Brewer.

      • AlexZ

        Show me where I defend her. I would also like you to cite a source where she has been shown to be a proven liar.

        Oh come on. This is just an opportunity for the usual cast of characters in the DailyCaller echo chamber to rail against the left and the media.

        People know what they’re getting when they tune into ABC’s This Week, just like they know what they’re getting when they tune into Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. They’re talk shows with so-called pundits blathering their opinions. At least ABC has the ethics not to put “News” in their show’s title. They both invite people with a range of opinions, but ABC tends left and Fox tends right. Big surprise. All these Sunday talk shows have teeny tiny audiences, so I rather doubt ABC is worried about their ratings at this point. For most people Sunday is about football, not George Will.

        • des1

          “I would also like you to cite a source where she has been shown to be a proven liar.”

          She lied about GITMO interrogation techniques and was thoroughly debunked by a guest on her show who was a former CIA agent. She lied about techniques we used and in comparing them to far worse techniques used by despotic countries.

          She also lied about the incident aboard the Turkish ship, and repeated lies about Tea Party protesters spitting and using racial epithets (including citing John Lewis as a source when he has never claimed either). Of course some of it could be attributed to really terrible journalism, but when you tell an untruth repeatedly on air, I like to call it a lie.

          • AlexZ

            You’re not citing proof, you’re repeating stuff you’ve heard — somewhere.

          • des1

            No, I’m repeating stuff I read (sourced stuff). I’m not going to spend hours looking it up on the internet to make you happy, so you can either take my word for it, don’t, or debunk it. But I’m not going to play the, “You have to prove it to my satisfaction” game.

            Libtards always try that crap, and nothing you ever give them happens to be good enough. Do your own research (or continue to live in your little ideological bubble).

          • des1

            On second thought, chew on this…

            As we continue with America’s most left-biased, working journalist list, we feature a woman that takes herself quite seriously and un-ironically as a non-opinion-styled journalist. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour really does think that no one can tell that she is a true-blue left-winger. Sadly, there is that all too human penchant of fooling oneself as much as one tries to fool others with this one. But that doesn’t stop her from making the claim.

            In 2008, for instance, Amanpour said of herself:

            I stay away from commentary and I stay away from ideology. All this stuff that we have seen marching into the space of fact-based news over the last several years, the highly opinionated, highly ideological [demagoguery] that exists and masquerades as journalism. I draw a line and I stay in the fact-based reality.

            Nice story, that. Reality, though, seems to diverge a bit from Amanopour’s self-serving assessment. Let’s take Amanpour’s recent altercation with Marc Thiessen, for example. During a recent appearance on her show, the former Bush speech writer took Amanpour to task for saying that the waterboarding tortures perpetrated by Cambodia’s genocidal communist organization Khmer Rouge was exactly the same sort used by the Bush administration on terror suspects.

            Here is how Amanpour characterized the waterboarding practices during her filmed visit to the Khmer Rouge torture camps:

            I stared blankly at another of Vann Nath’s paintings. This time, a prisoner is submerged in a life-size box of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe, his interrogators arrayed him, demanding information. I asked Vann Nath whether he had heard this was once used on America’s terror suspects. He nodded his head, ‘It’s not right.

            As Thiessen points out, this is a blatant untruth. The U.S. never used this sort of actual torture on terror suspects. The waterboarding used by U.S. authorities does not resemble the evil work of the Khmer Rouge in any way. But as far as this “unbiased” reporter is concerned, the U.S. is no different than the murderous Khmer Rouge. But Amanpour was quite happy to spread the disinformation about America’s efforts in the war against terror, anyway. It was in her special “un-biased” way, of course.

            Amanpour is also yet another Old Media apologist for the Obammessiah. Last December when everyone was making fun of The One for being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize quite despite his complete lack of works to qualify for such an award, Amanpour rushed to the fore to criticize those attacking Obama over the award.

            Amanpour was incensed that people were scoffing at Obama’s undeserved prize. “You know what? Can I just say, I think it’s overdone, this pushing back against his award,” the CNN host said:

            He’s obviously done something very significant, and that is, after eight years in which the United States was really held in contempt around the world, the United States has now had a new relationship with the rest of the world. This is what the Nobel Committee has rewarded and has accepted. This is what the polls around the world are showing.

            What “significant” work Obama had done to win a peace prize was never really delineated by the CNN host. Maybe she felt that just winning election was enough? If so, she reveals a complete lack of understanding about what a peace prize should be awarded for. Maybe something like fostering peace?

            But the worst bias that the Iranian-born Amanpour exhibits is her penchant to come to the aid of Muslims, to denigrate Israel, and to equate Christianity as equal to Islam in perpetrating evil.

            In 2008, for instance, Amanpour claimed that the China/Tibet situation was exactly the same as that of Israel and the Palestinians. No one with even a cursory understanding of the two situations could agree with her, however.

            Tibet was always a separate, sovereign nation that China moved to conquer in order to eliminate the Tibetan culture. On the other hand there never was any such nation as “Palestine” when Israel was formed by a 1948 United Nations decree. And the Israel/Palestinian situation was only created after Israel was attacked by an alliance of Arab nations in the 1967 Six Day War not by overt Israeli actions.

            Even as far back as 2007, Amanpour was seen doing her best to conflate what she felt was the evils of Christianity to the actual evils of Islam presenting them as if they were the same.

            During CNN’s special “God’s Warriors,” Amanpour says, “As I report around the world, people often ask me about the rise of religious influence on political power within the United States, but in fact this is true worldwide.” Here Amanpour conflates the way Christians interact with their governments world-wide to the way Muslims do in theirs. It’s as if Amanpour thinks there is no difference between jihadi governments infused with Muslim Sharia laws and western Christians participating in their democratic institutions.

            Still, after years of slighting Israel, western Christianity, the U.S. government, and anything else that stands in her ideological way, Amanpour insists that no one knows her political biases. In a 2009 interview with Lesley Stahl, Amanpour said, “I ask people just to look at my body of work. And nobody knows my biases. Do they think I’m against? Do they think I’m for? They don’t know my biases.”

            Well, we are looking and from what we can see her biases are far from hidden. But we aren’t the only ones. In March, TV critic Tom Shales worried that Amanpour’s often complained about anti-Israeli bias made her a bad candidate for ABC’s This Week Sunday TV show.

            In summation, one wonders just how extreme Christiane Amanpour could get? She nearly wears her bias on her sleeve as it is. One shudders to think what would happen if this “non-ideological” journalist would decide to let her hair down and really let her bias-flag fly?

          • AlexZ

            Oh you’re funny, des. You’re quoting Breitbart — without even giving him credit. Mr. Let Me Edit Your Video, Breitbart. Nice try, desi, no cigar.

          • des1

            Wow, that was an amazingly fact-based rebuttal of the column. It came from Breitbart (actually, Andrew had nothing to do with it’s writing), so therefore the facts do not need to be debated. She lied, but that’s ok because the guy calling her out had his article published on Breitbart’s site.

            Seriously, I’d call you an idiot, but that would be insulting to idiots.

          • AlexZ

            The guy writes: “Amanpour is also yet another Old Media apologist for the Obammessiah.” Come on, des, even you have to admit he’s obviously a person with an agenda. He can’t even fake NOT having an agenda You’re complaining that Amanpour is not fair and balanced and yet you accept this guy’s blatant bias as fact.

            You don’t really want neutral journalism. What you really want is everyone to be on your side. The test for you is not whether or not journalists are neutral, the test is whether or not they tip to the right.

          • des1

            No, I claimed that she was caught lying, which was pointed out in the article. The author didn’t make up her claims on waterboarding, I saw them myself in the interview. You said I couldn’t prove she lied, then I did, then you pretended it didn’t matter because you don’t like the source….so what I did prove is that you are the one who can’t see past his own ideology.

            But thanks for playing.

          • AlexZ

            Please don’t lecture me about being an ideologue when you use Breitbart’s site as a source. I don’t care which side of the debate you’re on, but when an exposé uses terms like “Obammessiah” freely, then you know the writer isn’t reporting, he’s got a very specific agenda. Everything he says becomes suspect to me.

            You won’t believe this, but I read widely and I apply the same sort of standard to the other side. If these writers really had something to say, some factual reporting to do, they wouldn’t need to use inflammatory language like that.

            Their real purpose is to call attention to themselves, attract eyeballs and clicks, stir people up, and make them fearful and angry — it’s NOT to inform. It’s pretty disgusting on both extremes of political spectrum.

            I object to the fact that the right is ready to jump on anything the left does as further evidence of some marxist plot or stealth jihadism, and I object to the fact that the left jumps on the right in the same way with their usual labels. The vast majority of Americans are in the middle and pretty darn sick that this extremism makes it so hard to accomplish anything of real value in our government.

            Christiane Amanpour is hosting a Sunday talk show. The ratings will speak for themselves. In any case, it’s not evidence of anything but someone’s business decision. Don’t like her, turn the channel. To rail, like people have done here, is really just absurd.

  • pleiades7

    Jake Tapper is a journalist with integrity. He could give ABC some chance of regaining the public trust it has lost. Apparently the CEO of Disney thinks his job is to influence people to turn their back on mainstream American values. The choice of Ammanpour over Tapper is evidence of such a disservice to all of us who want unbiased news. My family chooses not to support bias and will not watch This Week.