Friday, December 02, 2016

Anderson Cooper 360 on Friday, December 2, 2016


Anderson Cooper anchored an expanded two hour edition of AC360 from the NYC studio.



From 60minutes.com:

video

Preview: Drive-by Lawsuits DECEMBER 2, 2016, 2:15 PM|

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that every private business in the U.S. make their space accessible to disabled people. Some lawyers are filing thousands of lawsuits against businesses that often have no idea they've done anything wrong. Anderson Cooper reports on Sunday, Dec. 4 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

AC360 Transcript
AC360 Podcast

All content, unless otherwise cited, is © All Things Anderson and may not be used without consent of the blog administrator.

20 comments:

Pragya said...

Just want to say that everything about today's episode was perfect. Everything.

Anonymous said...

THIS EPISODE SHOULD BE INTERESTING. LAST YEAR I HAD THE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE OF FALLING AND BREAKING MY ARM AND SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN MORE THAN AWARE OF PLACES THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THIS
FEDERAL MANDATE. MANY BUSINESSES ARE NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND YES, THEY CAN
BE SUED FOR QUITE A BIT. THIS IS WHERE GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS A MUST.
MANY BABY BOOMERS USE HANDICAPPED PARKING, ESPECIALLY IN STATES WHERE THERE ARE A LOT OF RETIREES, LIKE MYSELF.

Jaanza said...

Rightly so the big news today was Trump talking with the President of Taiwan and all the diplomatic snafus that it has created. Sara Murray had the news and also mentioned Trump talking to the leader of Pakistan and may have also said the leader of the Philippines. Anderson spoke with Michelle Kosinski about the diplomatic angle of all of this. Next it was Kellyanne Conway who did her best to spin this as no big deal, Obama as President-Elect also talked to world leaders, some nonsense about what Trump's advisers did or didn't say before or after...

INTERRUPTING FOR A PERSONAL NOTE: While I'm watching 360, my DH is usually on his computer on the other side of the room. He rarely comments on the show and even though he's not really watching, he can still hear it. BACK TO MY POST -

After a minute or so of babble and whirls from Conway, DH said, "Can you turn it to something else? That woman is a complete idiot!" I switched to Hayes. I'm not sorry I missed the rest of Conway's prattle but wonder if Anderson asked about Trump talking to the leaders of the Philippines and Pakistan or asked about Eric Trump going to Taiwan to talk business.

The second segment was probably the best part of Friday's show. Anderson questioned Fareed Zakaria and Ivan Watson about Trump's call with Taiwan. The discussion was smart and informative.

Trump talking to Taiwan was still the story in the third segment. Anderson introduced a panel of only three people but the first one was Jeffrey Lord. It didn't matter whether DH would have said something or not after hearing Lord's hogwash, I changed the channel before Lord got a chance to open his mouth.

If there was a Bulletin (remember when 360 had Bulletins? Three or four short news bits?) the news that the FBI was investigating whether the attacker at Ohio State University earlier this week was influenced by ISIS would have been a bit in the Bulletin. It was a bit at the start of the fourth segment and a reason to air Drew Griffin's at least months-old report (simply judging by how different Griffin's hair was in the report and when talking to Anderson after the report) called "Young, In Love, Radicalized" about a guy who fell into ISIS and was caught.
Including this report instead of more important news - such as Trump filing a lawsuit to stop the recount in Michigan or scrutinizing the Carrier deal - was not a good decision.

The last segment of the first hour covered the South Carolina jury deadlocked over the case of Officer Slager's shooting of Walter Scott. Boris Sanchez had the details and Danny Cevallos had the analysis.
Anderson previewed the start of the second hour; it looked like repeat coverage of Trump's call with Taiwan.

@Pragya - you said today's show was perfect. Did you watch all two hours? Did Anderson cover Trump's Michigan recount lawsuit or investigate the Carrier deal? I sometimes wonder what I'm missing in the second hour but Maddow is so darn good.

aries moon said...

There was a lot of substance packed into 360 on Friday--good segments on Trump/Taiwan (he's ALREADY causing international incidents and he's not even sworn in yet), the world reaction and concerns over Trump's election (a particularly insightful discussion w/CNN's foreign correspondents--Arwa Damon spoke about the fear that people have about the rise of nationalism in certain countries). Anderson spoke with Van Jones and Jeff Lord about how the Democrats and Republicans will work together in the age of Trump--Van (and AC) are too sympathetic to Trump voters for my liking--I don't think folks who are ok with a president holding racist/sexist views are honorable people) but I was glad to see Van point out the hypocrisy of Republicans demanding that Democrats give Trump a chance when the GOP refused to do that with President Obama. Jones also mentioned that Democrats were able to find common ground with George W. Bush on some issues but he couldn't think of one instance where Republicans did the same with POTUS--Jeff Lord tried to suggest that Republicans 'agreed' with the president when he captured Osama bin Laden but even AC wasn't buying that--the subject concerned compromising on legislation.

Overall a good two hours considering it was a Friday night. One quibble I have is that Anderson struck a far less combative and hostile tone during his interview with Kelly Ann Conway--quite a contrast from his talk with Elizabeth Warren the other night--he also allowed KAC to speak for fairly long stretches with no interruptions--he interrupted Warren numerous times. The Martin Savage piece on one of the companies that didn't get a Carrier-like deal from Trump suggested that in spite of that, workers still were filled with a sense of 'hope'--unfortunately for them, it's false hope because the Carrier deal is not likely to be replicated across the country and the man they place their hopes on is a fraud.

Pragya said...

@jaanza
He asked Kellyanne about the call with Pakistan, and she deflected as usual. In a different segment he mentioned that Carrier had lied about 1100 jobs remaining in the U.S., and that it was in actuality 800. When I say perfect, I mean that in the context of this week, in which AC360 has been erratic at best. Started off strong, then wobbled and ended on a good note. For one AC did not defend Trump at any point, Jeffrey Lord was made to look like a fool as was Kellyanne who looked positively offended that she was being asked questions. And they had Zakaria and Friedman and CNN international correspondents on, which I always appreciate. CNN has some great talent and they have great resources. They broke the news about China having already contacted the White House, which AC pointed out to KC and also that a member of the Trump's transition team had set up the call, which is not what Trump had tweeted. I didn't catch Maddow yesterday, but I am curious to know what you loved about her show, and where you think AC needs to catch up?

@aries moon he was stuttering more than usual throughout yesterday's episode, I am starting to think Bannon has really scared CNN in some way. In fact even Robby Mook shied away from holding Bannon responsible for Breitbart. There is something really creepy about Bannon. But I liked that he still pushed as much as he could. My favourite exchange was summed up in this tweet:
@KellyannePolls "I don't remember these questions being asked of obama" @andersoncooper "but he never talked to the president of #Taiwan"
And I also liked that when KC said Trump has access to the briefings, AC responded with "does he use them" and he caught her lie about Trump having conferred with the State dept.

You know I am increasingly getting the sense that Kellyanne is not lying anymore the way she used to during the campaign, which was to cover for Trump. I think she genuinely has no clue what is going on. She has been frozen out and she does not want to admit it. Which could explain why she went public about Romney. There was one part in the interview where AC said the Taiwan call went against 40 years of policy and she just said "Right" and there was an awkward pause.

Looking forward to the 60 minutes segment. AC is at best when he is doing investigative journalism, and I am sick of Trump.

The only thing that gave me any joy today regarding Trump's actions was Ann Coulter's reaction. She is pissed. If I am going to get a trump admin, I demand more far-right tears.

Anonymous said...

JUST FOR THE RECORD, ANDERSON WAS VERY COMBATIVE WITH KELLYANNE CONWAY BEFORE THE ELECTION, WHEN
IT LOOKED AS THOUGH HILLARY WOULD WIN. NOW THAT TRUMP WEARS THE CROWN HE HAS SAVED HIS COMBATIVE
RHETORIC FOR ELIZABETH WARREN, SINCE SHE PUT GREAT EFFORTS INTO ALIGNING HERSELF WITH CLINTON.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHO ANDERSON IS COMBATIVE WITH AND I CAME UP WITH A LIST AND WHEN I USE THE
TERM COMBATIVE I'M REALLY SAYING FEISTY BUT WITH A NEGATIVE TONE. THE LIST IS : HILLARY CLINTON,
ELIZABETH WARREN, AND KELLYANNE CONWAY. HOWEVER, PARTISAN, PLEASE NOTICE THAT THEY ARE ALL,
YES, WOMEN. NAME ONE MAN THAT ANDERSON HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO BE FEISTY WITH A NEGATIVE INTERROGATING TONE. I COULDN'T THINK OF ONE.
YOU CAN DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS GENERAL OBSERVATION.

Anonymous said...

NO ONE CAN BEAT BILL MAHER WHEN IT COMES TO ONE LINERS: "WATCHING TRUMP TAKE ON PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES IS LIKE WATCHING A TODDLER PLAYING WITH A GUN."

Pragya said...

@anonymous

Abbreviated list of men AC has been combative with:

Andy Dean (Trump supporter)
Chafee (soft granite)
Webb
Bob Wagner
Louis Gohmert
Leo Berman
Cecil Ash
Mark Williams
Colonel Lakin
Al Melvin
Jeffrey Lord on multiple occasions
Gail Gitcho...

the list goes on and on. You are welcome to verify the claims.
Anderson has had one feisty interview with Hillary, when he grilled her over her lack of transparency, but he has given her softball interviews too. He went easiest on her during the primary debate, and the presidential debate.

It is true that Anderson is deferential towards whoever the President is. He has been that way throughout his career.

I do recall you using Kellyanne as an example of how Anderson is always respectful to Republicans so it is funny to see you suddenly accuse him of being hard on her. I guess this is the "Fox News" system.

Fun fact, Anderson's most highly acclaimed journalistic piece was his investigation into the "war on women." Make of that what you will.

Talking of the Warren interview, I think the Van Jones piece has made CNN and Anderson and Jones realize that most Obama supporters who switched votes to Trump did that because they felt neglected by Warren. Yet Warren refused to concede that at all. If the Democrats don't change their strategy, there is no way we will win the mid terms. It is frustrating.

Pragya said...

@Jaanza There was also a segment about Republicans having never supported Obama which AC agreed with

Anonymous said...

@Pragya, I cannot praise you and your smart contributions enough! Your rebuke of CAPPY's baseless accusation that AC only gets combative with women is spot-on. I'm glad I'm not the only one who disagreed with that charge, but your response beat me to the punch. Well done!

Sadly, I think you're correct about Warren's tone deaf refusal to draw conclusions from the tough results of the elections. Hopefully not all Democrats will be in such denial and will adapt their strategy to the changing political landscape if our party is to make some headway in the mid terms. Hopefully Trump and the Republican-led Congress will overplay their hand and force people to come to their senses and realize that this atrocious administration doesn't represent what this country is about.

aries moon said...

@pragya, slick talking @KellyAnnPolls certainly knows how to deflect away from every rotten thing Trump has done or said in order to find some way to blame it on Pres. Obama or liberals, and you're right, she often comes across as though she's appalled that she's expected to answer tough questions--it's sometimes challenging for reporters to take her on. As much as I've criticized AC here, I DO know he can really be up to that challenge when he wants to be--we've all seen him do it over the years and have praised him for it--I just want him to do it MORE, especially now, with this horrific administration coming in.

Anonymous said...

This shouldn't even be an argument or a question. We have to stand up for people that can't stand up for themselves. The law was passed for a reason.

Anonymous said...

When you see that an organization is not following the law, fix it. If it was built properly, there wouldn't be a problem. It doesn't matter if you are disabled or not, if you see that something isn't handicapped accessible, it should he fixed. You have no idea how difficult it is for people who are disabled. An inch can make a difference.

Jaanza said...

@Pragya - I've been judging Anderson and 360 only by watching the first hour. I'm glad to hear about good strong segments or when Anderson is asking tough questions and displaying pushback from the second hour. However too often the second hour is mostly a repeat of the first. Maddow, even if she covers the exact same topics, will have a different perspective and talk to different pundits.

MSNBC in general and Maddow is particular are more left-leaning and geared towards more left-leaning people like me. Folks to the right have FOX. CNN is supposed to be in the middle. I'm willing to admit it may be my own personal political point-of-view that makes me believe Anderson is too soft on GOP politicians and pundits. For much of the year it really did look like Anderson asked marshmallow questions to Republicans and let ridiculous statements by right-wing pundits just slide by. Hillary Clinton got his attention only for the so-called email scandal and 'Hillary Drops In the Polls! What's Wrong With Her Message'. Examples of Anderson being tough on both sides and both genders. And maybe Anderson will be tough in the future under President of the Electoral College Trump. We've seen some good displays this week.

But I will continue to watch Maddow instead of 360's second hour. I like how Maddow talks. I like how she will talk to one expert and not a barge of the usual pundits. I like how she tells viewers, after a segment covering Trump's call with Taiwan, "I'm flabbergasted." She' will tell viewers her opinion; we haven't seen that from Anderson in years.
I like how she covers stories Anderson ignores. For weeks Maddow covered the tap water crisis in Flint MI while Anderson had a couple of reports only when the situation was really hot. I predict Maddow, unless there is an explosive breaking new story between now and tomorrow night, will cover the Standing Rock protest as a big and meaningful victory. If Anderson covers Standing Rock and DAPL it won't be in the first hour.

Bottom line: I love Anderson but wish 360 would be better.

Anonymous said...

@PRAGYA: I KNEW SOMEONE WOULD DO THEIR HOMEWORK AND I'M CERTAIN THERE ARE MEN THAT AC HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF. THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY A QUESTION. I POSED IT AS A STATEMENT. I MEANT MEN OF IMPORTANCE, NOT ANYONE YOU'D HAVE TO GOOGLE.
HOW ABOUT THE ONE WOMAN WHO MADE AC FAMOUS: AH, YES, MARY LANDRIEU, REMEMBER HER, SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA DURING KATRINA JUST ANOTHER WOMAN TO PILE ON.
AND FOR YOUR INFO: I NEVER WATCH FOX NEWS. AC IS BI-PARTISAN WHEN HE WANTS TO BE AND THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.
@ 8:00 AND 5:57: YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT. AN INCH, A FOOT, A YARD CAN MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME, IN THIS CASE ATTORNEYS, WHO WILL SCAM THE SYSTEM. WE NOW HAVE A PRESIDENT ELECT WHO, IMHO, IS A CON ARTIST. I DO HOPE HE PROVES ME WRONG.
IF THERE WAS NO LAW IN PLACE FOR THE DISABLED, NO BUSINESS WOULD ON ITS OWN, PROVIDE ANY ACCESS, UNLESS THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AND THEN THEY'D BE SUED.
SINCE THE EARLY 90'S, ANYONE FOUND NOT IN COMPLIANCE ARE NOT ONLY SUED, THEY ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES IF THEY HAPPEN TO OCCUR, AND NEGLIGENCE CAN COST A PRETTY PENNY.

Anonymous said...

Except that the shady lawyers who are suing thousands of businesses for non-compliance clearly do so out of predatory practice, and not to benefit the handicapped community. They're exploiting the law to enrich themselves while masquerading as defenders of the handicapped. It's a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

THOSE "THOUSANDS OF BUSINESSES" YOU SPEAK OF WOULDN'T BE SUED IN THE FIRST PLACE, NO MATTER THE MOTIVE, IF THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE. THEY WERE NOT. IT'S A DISGRACE THAT HANDICAPPED PEOPLE ARE TREATED AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.

Anonymous said...

Did you watch the 60 Minutes piece, CAPPY? Because if you did, you would clearly realize that a lot of the businesses being sued were trying their best to be in compliance with the law, but fell victim to the mercenary practice of unscrupulous lawyers trying to cash in on the plight of the disabled by exploiting a Byzantine set of regulatory rules. 2 men in a wheelchair are actually sueing one such law office for using them as pawn to shake down thousands of businesses with bogus lawsuits, as they feel that their actions are in fact hurting the disabled community by pitting them against small business owners. That is truly a disgrace you should feel angry about, in which handicapped people's very real problems are being used by shady lawyers to enrich themselves.

Anonymous said...

YES I SAW THE 60 MINUTES PIECE AND I READ YOUR REPLY IN COMMENT.
I STAND BY MY COMMENT. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE THAT TRY TO SCAM THE GOVERNMENT OR CIRCUMVENT THE
LAW. DID YOU READ MY REPLY BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU WOULDN'T KEEP HARPING ON THE SAME ISSUE OR TELLING ME HOW I SHOULD FEEL.

Anonymous said...

I did read your last comment CAPPY, and I respectfully disagree with you (something I wish you were capable of). AC's piece about those shady so called "Google lawsuits" against small businesses was really edifying, and I'm glad 60 Minutes is drawing attention to such an abuse of the law. This is why I "keep harping on the issue" as you so rudely clain, because guess what? I'm entitled to express my opinion here as much as you do (and boy do you exercise that right often around here, so why shouldn't I?).