Um, did any CAF members actually LIKE Matt Lauer?


#1

Was the 2012 situation involving Ann Curry a red flag?


#2

I’ve honestly never really liked NBC at all…at best they were just another rather left leaning secular news service… EWTN is far better IMO


#3

when i was running late to get to work; i’d’ve sometimes turned on that show

lauer always seemed like a class AA weird-o to me

plus he is a lock-step secularist lib


#4

I barely knew who this man was before this week. I saw him host the Macy’s Parade on TV like twice when he was younger so I didn’t even recognize his older self.

I have even less idea who Ann Curry is.

Who cares about any of these people?


#5

Tv is dying and so are the morning shows


#6

I always hated the morning shows. I just wanted to see the news and weather, not them interviewing some kid from Peoria who they then would have to cut off for talking too long.


#7

They don’t serve the same function.


#8

Actually they do. NBC formerly was religiously neutral, but favorable to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Its programming, radio then TV, looked at everyday life from that perspective. It evolved in recent years to reflect the secular humanist perspective, but still somewhat respectful towards the minority viewpoint, which is Christianity.

In more recent years it has evolved from reflecting the secular humanist viewpoint, to actively promoting this doctrine. I don’t mean they directly look at secular humanism, I mean this is the viewpoint from which they view everything else.

Same with EWTN, except that they have a different viewpoint, and they have a tiny fraction of 1% of the money NBC has. EWTN is less restricted, in that they are able to look at their own lens, Catholicism, and also to look at secular humanism. NBC is able to look at Catholicism, but unable to look at their own lens, secular humanism.


#9

In some ways, yes… They both have news programs, essentially making them competitors in that regard


#10

Didn’t CBS and ABC go down the same path?


#11

Yes they did sadly


#12

How about Fox News? CNN? MSNBC?


#13

I do not know if I like the man, I have never met him.

I pray for all people, I pray for the accused and the accuser, I pray that in the end truth wins. I wonder why we have moved from innocent until proven guilty.


#14

To answer the question directly: I didn’t dislike him. Aside from seeming a little bland and banal, I really had no feelings about him. I don’t think the world of broadcast journalism and morning shows will miss him.
Ann Curry was a lot more sincere.


#15

I didn’t like or dislike him. He was just a guy on tv. He, like most people on tv, can and will be replaced. And then forgotten.


#16

I haven’t watched the Today Show in years! I know who Matt Lauer is and never felt one way or the other about him. He seemed likeable.
I thought the quote Hillary said about his firing was weird - about karma because he dared to ask Hillary almighty about her e-mails. And he was criticized for it! As a journalist, he had every right to ask her. It was news.


#17

Well, he did admit to some bad behavior, I think that is why.
But you are correct, there is often a lot of accusing without much in the way of facts, and then condemnation before finding out the truth.


#18

Amen. What you said is true for us all. I think people in the TV host industry have some exaggerated sense of their own importance to the culture - it’s kind of their stock-in-trade, whether their audience cares about them just as they would a personal friend who they see every day. This may have had more credence back when there were only 3 networks and the whole country was watching Walter Cronkite or Ed Sullivan, but nowadays even if you watch TV there’s so many networks, shows, and hosts that these guys are like autumn leaves blowing down the street and are forgotten a heck of a lot faster than they were back in the day.


#19

Never watched…I was a CNN kinda guy til they went all looney tunes, now it’s fox or BBC (or food network!)


#20

This is true to an extent, but if a man with Lauer’s kind of money and profession was falsely accused and then fired by a huge network over it, it would be major lawsuit time. For them to take the step of canning him, it had to look so bad that there was virtually no chance of legal retaliation. And when the New York Times is about to publish some big bombshell story on you and you’re with a media outlet they basically like (i.e. you’re not the big kahuna on Fox News or the head of Breitbart), there was likely a large scandal and the man admitted to it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.