In our view, he richly deserves it: Tuesday evening, we were desperate to escape the mawkish coverage of the crimes in Cleveland. When Anderson Cooper threw to Christopher Cuomo, we decided to accept this escape.
Cuomo was doing a special interview program with Amanda Knox. We had never followed that case. We decided to watch.
We expected to watch one segment. Cuomo’s performance was so appalling that we ended up watching the entire program—and it turned out to be 90 minutes long!
We’re glad to see that Cuomo has been getting roasted for his appalling behavior, in which he went after Knox for her sexual conduct, real and imagined, like some sort of medieval cleric on a very strong dose of acid. As the disgraceful program unfolded, we were struck by Cuomo’s sexual prurience and by his total failure to develop the facts of the case.
We’ll recommend Susan Milligan’s piece at US News for a basic review of this horrible effort. Click here. Warning! She includes a video clip.
We’ll add one basic thought:
As we watched Cuomo, we were struck by how unconvincing his basic performance was. He seemed to be trying to play the tough-guy, no-nonsense TV interviewer—some sort of cross between Bill O’Reilly and an actual prosecutor.
In our view, he just wasn’t very good at striking this pose. But good God! How hard he seemed to be trying!
We couldn’t help thinking how much is at stake at such moments for TV pimps like Cuomo. As we have told you again and again, the rewards are very great today for people who do the news on TV. People will say and do what it takes to land and keep those jobs.
Christopher Cuomo is on TV because his father was talented and because his name is well-known. To us, he seemed to be trying very hard to keep the big sacks of cash rolling in.
That said, this same corrupting process operates elsewhere on cable news channels. Sensible progressives should be suspicious of the way this industry’s vast rewards may cause liberal stars to behave.
From Milligan’s piece, an excerpt: Below, you see a sample of Cuomo’s work from this horrendous program. Trust us, it got worse:
CUOMO (5/7/13): Were you into deviant sex? Insensitive question, but hey, we gotta get to what it is. This fuels the doubt. Were you into that kind of experimentation?As it continued, it did get worse, and it went on forever. We were especially appalled by this disgraceful hook:
CUOMO: Did Meredith [Kercher, the murder victim] suspect you were into these types of things and created a barrier between the two of you?
CUOMO: And therefore you resented her because she was judging you? None of that?
KNOX: No. Absolutely not. There's no evidence of that.
CUOMO: That's the theory. Knox is into some freaky sexual things. She tried to pull in Meredith, who was a staid, buttoned-up Brit, she wasn't into it, and it went wrong ... That was in the discussion of the judges, yes?
KNOX: Absolutely. I was there in the courtroom when they were calling me things like "violent," "whore," and "deviant." And it's all untrue.
CUOMO: Where are they getting that from? Did you have any type of experimental activities that you're embarrassed to talk about? That they know about?
KNOX: Well in the book I talk about all my sexual experiences, and I haven't needed to talk about the details of that because they aren't deviant. I wasn't strapping on leather and bearing a whip. I've never done that.
CUOMO: No group activities?
KNOX: I've never taken part in an orgy, ever.
CUOMO: You're shocked that there's going to be a retrial, yes?What a disgraceful person! In this exchange, Amanda Knox dared to note that the evidence used against her has turned out to be bogus. To Christopher Cuomo's suspicious mind, this also suggested her guilt.
KNOX: Because there's no evidence against me. Because the physical evidence that the prosecution was putting forth and damning against me was proven to be wrong. And for all of their theories about my personality and my behavior, there is nothing that links me to this murder. I am not present at the crime scene. I am just not. And the idea that I could have participated in a murder and yet be not present at the crime scene is ludicrous. So people can talk about my behavior and talk about my active sexual life all they want, but it's irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence that places me at the murder scene.
CUOMO: Do you think you come off too, “They can't prove it,” and not enough, “I didn't do it?” Do you understand the distinction between those two? Ask me if I killed somebody, the answer is no, I didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. Not, “You can't prove it.” Not, “You can't place me at the scene.” Do you understand how “You can't place me at the scene” sounds cagey?
Since Tuesday, we’ve been trying to think if we’ve ever seen a more disgraceful TV performance. Three days later, we still can’t give you a cite.