Vieira ain't no Stephanopoulos

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Meredith Vieira’s interview with Terry Jones earlier this week displayed immature behavior and an unprofessional attitude. A reporter's task is to expose and inform the public. Vieira’s attitude, body language, and logic communicated a lack of self control. Although she is entitled to her own views and beliefs, her career demands that she maintain an attitude of neutrality to faithfully conduct her job.

Vieira’s attitude failed to empathize with Terry Jones' position. Jones' position is that radical Islam is dangerous. He believes this is a truth the American media has not taken seriously, especially in the case of the building of the mosque near Ground Zero in NYC. Vieira repeatedly confessed her confusion at Jones’ line of reasoning and responses. However, Jones was quite clear and I did not feel that confusion. Vieira’s language further demonstrated her attitude and point of view. She used words like “bigoted, intolerant, and crazy”. Vieira also said, “You incited this,” to Jones, making her presuppositions obvious.

Vieira’s body language and tone of voice displayed her posture towards Jones. Vieira’s raised eyebrows revealed her shock with regard to Jones. Her hand gestures demonstrated her antagonism towards him. Clearly, Jones’ methods are shocking and his actions belligerent. It’s easy to understand how Vieira felt shock and antagonism. However, her responsibility as a news anchor is to maintain composure and professionalism during the interview process. Vieira’s goal is a public, not personal, conversation with Jones. Vieira allowed her personal stance to overshadow her public role.

Vieira’s logic, which was exposed in her line of questioning, revealed her agenda. Her original problem was confusion and her original question was if the burning of the Quran was happening. Jones response was complex. Jones said the burning would certainly be cancelled if his demand was met – that demand being the moving of the intended mosque. Jones claimed that if a meeting with the Imam happened the burning of the Qurans would be at least postponed if not cancelled. Vieira claimed she was still confused, which communicated her inability to hear Jones. Vieira failed at this point by asking a closed question rather than an open question. A closed question is fishing for confirmation, whereas an open question is asking for information. When Vieira asked Jones whether or not she was going to go through with the burning, she was expecting a yes or no answer. When Vieira did not receive a yes or no answer, the nature of her questioning was exposed, which was to look for confirmation of her agenda rather than clarity of Jones position and actions.

Overall, Vieira failed to maintain an attitude conducive to her task. If Vieira had maintained an attitude of neutrality, Jones’ position and actions would have spoken for themselves. This would have placed the public in the position to make the judgment. Instead, Vieira took on the role of judge and thereby drew the attention away from Jones to herself. As a viewer, I was robbed of the right to make my own judgment. The result of Vieira’s interjecting herself into the interview was that I was now required to agree or disagree with her. The conversation was then between the viewer and Vieira rather than between the viewer and Jones. The end result is that now I disagree with Jones actions but also with Vieira’s behavior. Although I disagree with Jones actions, I feel more negativity toward Vieira. Even though I enjoy watching the Today Show, I now feel the lack of connection is absent because Vieira conducted herself in an untrustworthy manner.

The bottom line: Vieira ain't no Stephanopoulos.