Christiane Amanpour has been sitting at the newly refurbished This Week desk for nearly two months now. While some reviewers took shots at the former foreign correspondent in her first few weeks on the job—the Post’s Tom Shales ludicrously asked if Amanpour was suggesting we mourn Taliban members after the host made a point of including “all those who died in war” in an “In Memoriam” segment—she has had successes as she’s settled in. This week alone, Amanpour booked Hillary Clinton and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pressing the latter hard; and with a new, more international focus, This Week began airing on BBC World News at the beginning of September.
That deal takes Amanpour and This Week to over two hundred countries across the world; but Amanpour told CJR assistant editor Joel Meares that her priority is bringing the world to the U.S. She spoke to Meares Tuesday about the move to Sunday morning, her critics, and reporting in a new age. This is an edited transcript of that conversation.
After twenty-seven years covering international news at CNN, why did you move to the more inward-looking arena of Sunday morning talk?
Taking this program was not about leaving CNN or having any problems in that regard. It was about seeing an opportunity and seizing it, seizing the day, and seizing this moment to further what I’ve always tried to do.
The bottom line is this: I have a mission and my mission has been to bring, through all my work, a broader understanding of the world to U.S. viewers—first with my job at CNN and now at ABC with This Week. I feel strongly that the United States is in a unique moment of history right now where everything is in play—economy, politics, environment, security, not to mention wars and how to deal with rogue nations, how to deal with proliferation, how to deal with peace and conflict resolution. All of that is globalized. It’s not about the U.S. sitting inside fortress America and not being willing to look out. Everything now, right down to how Americans are educated, how they do business, how they operate in the world, is globalized.
This was an extraordinary opportunity and it was counter-intuitive—it wasn’t conventional wisdom; I’m sure ABC didn’t think of me first when George Stephanopoulos went on to do his great job at GMA. I felt that when this opportunity came up I needed to grab it with both hands, because this is what I’ve been talking about all my career. I believe in putting my work where my mouth is. I felt that I could no longer just talk about how not enough international perspective was on network or other news in the United States. ABC said to me that what they wanted to do was also to differentiate themselves on a Sunday morning. And, while I am doing politics, and while I am being competitive on the midterm elections and the economy and all the things that affect the United States, I’m also adding new layers of international perspective.
Do you think Americans want to see international news on a Sunday morning?
I’m not going to put the cart before the horse. I’m just going to say that I’m pleased with the way we have been received so far. I understand that this is a big challenge. I understand that it is somewhat counterintuitive. And therefore I understand how hard my team and I have to work. But I’m not trying to deliver something that’s foreign. I’m trying to deliver something that I believe many, many Americans want, particularly those who tune in on a Sunday morning—these are people who are interested in what goes on around them, the politics and economics of their own country, but also, by virtue of how their country is changing and how the world’s reality changing, I hear direct feedback from people saying that they do want to know more about the world.

"newly-refurbished"? I thought -ly adverbs don't take hyphens in this case? Sorry, got distracted by this as I'm an editor. Now going to read the article.
#1 Posted by daniel mcmahon, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 05:23 PM
Thank you Daniel. Fixed now.
#2 Posted by Joel Meares, CJR on Thu 23 Sep 2010 at 08:49 PM
Her guest list is impressive. Her questions are not. Please introduce her to John Sawatsky, http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=676, and the best show on Sunday morning will improve significantly.
#3 Posted by Christopher Frear, CJR on Sun 26 Sep 2010 at 08:43 PM
Amanpour has an impressive list of guests, and poor ratings. One reason could be seen in her show this last weekend. Amanpour interviewed David Axlerod and asked him why Americans didn't appreciate the "amazing" legislative accomplishments of Presidents Obama. Oh my. Hard hitting question, there.
Then, for comparison sake, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, she repeatedly challenged him, asking him if the "fringe" and "bizarre" quality of GOP candidates wouldn't hurt Republicans in November. (I guess that explains why Republicans are expected to do so poorly in November) Later, when McConnell made the argument for extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, Amanpour claimed that such an action would add "trillions" to the federal deficits.
Later still, when her guest was Jordan's Queen Rania, Amanpour asked her to confirm that there was "sort of a dangerous Islamophoia" present in the US.
Amusingly, Amanpour claims in this interview that she brings no bias to her work. But she is one of the few people who doesn't consider her work biased. Even the Daily Beast, run by liberal Tina Brown, once put her on its list of the Top 25 Journalists of the Left. And she herself has admitted in the past to bringing a bias to her work.
She once told a reporter: "It drives me crazy when this neutrality thing comes up. Objectivity, that great journalistic buzzword, means giving all sides a fair hearing—not treating all sides the same—particularly when all sides are not the same. When you’re neutral in a situation like Bosnia, you are an accomplice—an accomplice to genocide."
One could cite many examples of her bias, including her widely panned 2007 "God's Warriors," which equated Judaism and Christianity with radical Islam.
#4 Posted by frank, CJR on Tue 28 Sep 2010 at 07:42 PM
I think that the urban chattering classes really believe they represent 'the center' almost by some self-referential definition, much as the Old Right in Europe up to the world wars felt that, as a class, it constituted 'the nation' in some metaphysical, White Russian way - no matter what the actual people who did most of the working and living and dying thought.
To be on 'the Left' is to believe History is on your side - so that opinions which may be statistically 'fringy' on the part of such true-believing modernists will be vindicated in the long run. Not unlike Marxists, they believe their opinions to be almost 'scientific'. The Tea Party strikes them as 'extreme' in a way that left-wing kooks do not because the Tea Party is resisting the tide of history. Such rhetoric has little or nothing to do with what real people think in the here and now.
Whether it is promotion of, say, same-sex marriage, or support of illegal immigration (and a general transformation of American culture into a sort of idealized view of the United Nations, or maybe just San Francisco or New York), or opposition to 'barbaric' practices such as capital punishment, or support for unrestricted abortion rights, or a disproportionate emphasis on 'environmentalism', or any number of views that remain distinctively those of an easily-identified urban/chattering class elite, the response of an Amanpour (Ivy League, Kennedy friend, multi-cultural, European by citizenship, and so forth) will be that even though her judgments about what is and is not 'extreme' are now statistically innumerate, the public will 'catch up' to her advanced viewpoints, and those of her class.
#5 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 05:23 PM
There seems to be a deep misunderstanding and even ignorance to what kind of journalism Amanpour adheres to. Foremost, she has, until very recently, exclusively been an international correspondent for an international news network, meaning the only coverage of the US she has done is from a foreign policy perspective and the real ramifications that those policies have on the ground. Amanpour covers the entire world, and her understanding and perspective, as is her reach and recognition, is global.
This kind of reporter can be very hard to understand in the US because partly there is this serious lack of fact based reporting on international news and partly because we are so egocentric. We are so enamored with our own politics and political lexicon, such as “main stream media,” “liberal,” and “tea partier” that our inclination is to use an American label even when those labels simply do not apply. Amanpour is neither a liberal nor a conservative, and if she is perceived in the US as having more of a left leaning stance, it is simply because the world in which she reports, outside of the US, and it’s viewpoints are more progressive.
Regarding Amanpour’s famous quote about objectivity, it is true that she made that statement in response to a New York Times piece questioning her objectivity during the Bosnian War. In effect, it implied that she had “gone native,” or suffered from “Stockholm syndrome” from reporting on the front lines during the Siege of Sarajevo and was not able to effectively report both sides of the conflict. This was still when the world did not want to believe, and therefore have to act on, what was actually happening, which was genocide. What she reported was that it is was not simply an internal conflict and a civil war where all sides were equal, but that there were clear aggressors and clear victims. Her reporting made it impossible for world leaders such as the US to turn away with impunity and not stop what was, in fact, a genocide.
She is solely a fact base journalist, and disdains opinion that masks itself as fact or opinion makers and talking heads who mask themselves as journalists but are more aptly defined as entertainers. She has spent her entire career not sitting in a studio and simply reading the news, or even worse simply espousing an opinion on the news, but using boot leather of on the ground hard reporting in global hotspots and the royally bad places of the world to get the facts and cover the story. She strongly believes that is what true, fact based reporting requires. When covering things like war, genocide, and famine, time to make a formed opinion or a political stance is a luxury that a reporter like Amanpour simply does not have.
It is bemusing to read talk of ratings and what Amanpour will do to them, as if we as citizens and consumers of news are more interested in a news corporation’s well being than we are of getting that news unvarnished by any commercial interest. Amanpour has said that while she realizes networks such as ABC are ran as a business and can expect to receive a profit from their investments, she expresses a desire to return to the time when corporations such as Disney saw their respected news divisions as sort of the crown jewel of the much larger corporation and was modeled less as a business and more as a public service.
#6 Posted by Dean Brown, CJR on Fri 8 Oct 2010 at 03:38 AM
I thought I'd enjoy Christiane on This Week, but so far have not.Christiane should sit on her hands-they are in our face! And stop interrupting her guests! If Christiane wants to be giving her opinions all the time, she should be a guest, not a host.
#7 Posted by marian, CJR on Sat 27 Nov 2010 at 11:59 PM
I thought I'd enjoy Christiane on This Week, but so far have not.Christiane should sit on her hands-they are in our face! And stop interrupting her guests! If Christiane wants to be giving her opinions all the time, she should be a guest, not a host.
#8 Posted by marian, CJR on Sun 28 Nov 2010 at 12:05 AM