ALSO: Even though I pay for YouTubeTV, I had to watch many commercials, including the thumping, ominous trailer for the movie "Primetime," which is about rescuing children from sexual predators. I had to watch that awful mess before the interview, in the middle of the interview, and at the end of the interview. Who wanted that ad placement and why did CBS allow it? And what does Ross Douthat, traditional moralist, think of it?Patrick Clancy talks about the final days with his 8-month-old son, Callan.
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 20, 2026
“I really thought there was a chance that Callan would live,” he tells 60 Minutes. “And remember just thinking, ‘Just gimme one. Just gimme one kid,’ and I would raise him as best I could, and I would… pic.twitter.com/5HMfnujj1d
21 सितंबर 2026
Did you watch Ross Douthat interview Patrick Clancy on "60 Minutes"?
I did. It was terrible. What is the point of bringing on Ross Douthat to invite the father to speak of cuddling a baby as it died and seeing a dead toddler in his dreams and receiving assistance from his new wife in bearing the burden of grief? I thought Douthat was an intellectual, devoted to analyzing morality.
संदेश
51 टिप्पणियां:
“I thought Douthat was an intellectual, devoted to analyzing morality”
…that’s on you.
NYT cult. A cult.
What is the point? Soap opera. Ratings from half the population, 90% of the TV viewing population.
That's the difference between print (analytical and thought-oriented) and television (oriented to images and emotions).
But to be fair, would any Times columnist have done better? David French? Bret Stephens? Mo Dowd? Tom Friedman? Going back a way -- Anthony Lewis? Russell Baker might have been interesting.
And if you're interviewing a grieving father, it's not for intellectual and analytical reasons. Making him go back *there* emotionally is a burden enough for him, and it's what the audience wants.
At this point anything that has to do with Clancy is just click bait. Now the farce has moved out of the courtroom to the social sphere: the father, the lone juror, the Karen jurors, the defense lawyer and on and on. Get on with the retrial and put the Murdering Mom behind bars. Enough!
"What is the point? Soap opera...."
The question is what is the point of bringing on Ross Douthat for that kind of work. Nothing that distinguishes him fits with that kind of soft, melodramatic material.
ALSO.. The usual villains in trash action fiction are either white supremacist groups or child sexual predators. It's go-to for ratings. No longer drunk drivers or dangerous dogs. MeToo is still a possibility but tends to be ridiculous when portrayed.
This was the second episode of this season of the grand old show that Bari Weiss is supposed to have revamped. I watched to see what she has accomplished. Bringing on Douthat was a big deal, and this was his first appearance.
Watched first 2 minutes. Turned it off.
The part where he explained his intention to tell the new children he's planning to have with his new wife about their dead "brothers and sister" was macabre imo. Very offputting to me.
I actively avoid material that plays on emotions about children in danger. It's been 30 years since I watched "The Client" because I was on a plane and it was back in the days when there was a largish screen that everyone had in their line of sight.
"The part where he explained his intention to tell the new children he's planning to have with his new wife about their dead "brothers and sister" was macabre imo."
Yes, and there was talk of "celebrating" a dead child's birthday. That'll be nice for the new kids.
Think the best of people instead of the worst is the moral keystone. Use it to check moral experts.
…there are those of us who never saw the Bari person as anything more than attempt at a reset of credibility after mainstream media and 60 minutes specifically set their own credibility on fire like a bag of stinky poo left on a doorstep. Its not like Bari wasn’t part of the firewagon before taking over…
…the Douthat person is merely another player on the depth chart, perhaps the most available to sacrifice some hit points…
Why did you watch it Ann? You are not one to waste your time on things you don’t like.
…there are enough thought experiments, examples that demonstrate it takes longer for some to recognize the necessity for a pivot, a change in perspective. Maybe it is empathetic ‘I can change them’ that prevents some to change, maybe the hole left in their routines too drastic, I don’t know…
It's done to confuse you. The same reason they invert issues on other subjects. You hear about the main points, except they're mis-attributed and the players are moved around. So it sounds familiar, but you're conditioned to never get to the bottom of it. No resolution.
He married her and had three children with her, what's his story...
"Let's not downplay the fact that that is the ghost of Morley Safer!"
I have had enough of the Clancey show. Watched the Brewers win, for the most wins in franchise history.
I remain perplexed at the hyper-interest in this case. Maybe I read too much crime news, but there's a mother-kills-kid(s) story almost every week.
Or maybe it's because it's indisputable that any mother who does this is at lest a little disturbed. I watch the grandstanding from a distance.
At this point I don't understand how anyone could be disappointed in something produced at CBS.
“Did you watch…..I did”. I didn’t and I won’t.
If only you applied similarly critical thought to the newspaper that you favor even after it has repeatedly lied to you and abused your trust.
"He married her and had three children with her, what's his story..."
Whatever his story is, the pertinent details to your query were not contained in that interview, possibly on purpose.
I wonder how many of Ross Doughnuts 60 minutes audience know who he is, or have ever read his work? Or want to watch "intellectual" segments by him.
Maybe giving Doughnut this sort of interview was a way on introducing him to the people who have never read him.
Perhaps Clancy only agreed to a sit down with certain hosts. Perhaps Douthat fit that bill.
If I were Patrick Clancy I would just go away.
However, I've not been the subject of thousands of TikTok videos blaming me for killing my children.
Planned parenthood.
I thought it was a good interview. I hadn't seen Patrick Clancy speak before, didn't watch a moment of that atrocious trial. I am glad he gets to start over. Sheesh, people.
Q : will wife Clancy have access to RUBBER BANDS
How much does Ezra Klein and Ross Douthat pay their interview guests?
I was puzzled until I went back and reread, noticing "60 Minutes". There's your answer.
Shorter Althouse: no man deserves sympathy, no matter what has happened yo him.
News
How do you feel?
We now find out 8 of the jurists are activists.
I am glad, however, that feminists are publicly admitting that some can be so hormonal that their reasoning ability resembles insanity.
On the movie "Primetime." Chris Hansen has expressed som trepidation about the film, and was not involved with it. He was offered a chance to pre-screen it, with a stipulation that he sign an NDA. He refused. So he did this:
"Hansen has purchased pre-show advertising for every theatrical screening of Primetime.[49] The ads show Hansen in a kitchen like the ones seen in his sting operations, asking the audience to "take a seat" before directing the audience to his streaming service TruBlu."
For the record I didn’t sit down to watch 60 Minutes. I was looking for a podcast to listen to while I got ready in the morning and I played that segment like I would play a podcast. I considered it potential blog material and I wrote this post so it was bloggable. I stand by the material in the blog post. I genuinely want to discuss the transformation of CBS by Bari Weiss and assess the performance of Ross Douthat.
It is true that I don’t feel sympathetic to Patrick Clancy. I haven’t consumed much of the material around the Clancy trial, but my natural response to what I have heard is that I feel he should’ve found a way to protect his children. He let them alone with a person who was apparently quite insane.
@Althouse, would it change your mind to know that Lindsay Clancy met with a psychiatrist THE DAY BEFORE THE-MURDERS, and claimed that she was not a threat to herself or to others?
If I'm a little kid, I want my dad to protect me, not trust assurances from my insane mother.
Everyone who entertains abortive ideation to relieve a "burden" of state and mind is insane... Mao was insane. Hitler was insane. Clancy is insane. Planned parenthood, in particular, is a wicked solution with empathetic support.
Why didn't the guy realize his wife was a real and present danger to their children. Somehow, he has accountability here too. Regardless of the looney-tune women who support the "Patrick did it" theory, he has legitimate responsibility here for not noticing his wife was genuinely unsafe person for the kids --- can't believe this was a sudden spur of the moment decision to murder the three little kids. Nope, sorry, no way. Absolutely premeditated..
*I remain perplexed at the hyper-interest in this case. Maybe I read too much crime news, but there's a mother-kills-kid(s) story almost every week.*
Because it's more than just the mom strangling her kids.
It's all the support she's receiving for strangling her kids, and how the jurors have taken a torch to the system.
This case is a turning point. A point to where some people are going to look back and go, "Yep. That was the final straw for me."
The Clancys are white, middle class, professional and suburban, that makes them relatable for journalists and their audiences. Also, all the doctors and prestigious hospitals did no good in the case, and that's a hook for controversialists. Mass General is the Harvard of hospitals and McLean is the Harvard of loony bins. Robert Lowell, Sylvia Plath and Angelina and Winona in "Girl Interrupted" give the place real cachet.
Ann Althouse said...
It is true that I don’t feel sympathetic to Patrick Clancy. I haven’t consumed much of the material around the Clancy trial, but my natural response to what I have heard is that I feel he should’ve found a way to protect his children. He let them alone with a person who was apparently quite insane.
LOL!
Let us review his options:
1. Get a divorce, watch her get custody, get kicked out of the house and have to give her 50% of his income.
2. Try to have her condemned to an insanity ward, getting divorced, watching her get custody, get kicked out of the house and have to give her 50% of his income.
3. Try to get a restraining order against her, get divorced, watch her get custody, get kicked out of the house and have to give her 50% of his income.
4. Kill her and burn her body in the backyard or stage a boating/driving accident.
#4 is obviously the right answer in hindsight.
I don't think he had #4 in him and he would probably be on the news as a murderer or attempted murderer of a sweet loving mother.
We all know you would have been right there in the howling mob to execute him if he tried #4.
Not Illinois Resident said...
Why didn't the guy realize his wife was a real and present danger to their children. Somehow, he has accountability here too. Regardless of the looney-tune women who support the "Patrick did it" theory, he has legitimate responsibility here for not noticing his wife was genuinely unsafe person for the kids --- can't believe this was a sudden spur of the moment decision to murder the three little kids. Nope, sorry, no way. Absolutely premeditated.
Oh FFS.
You people keep saying this.
As I posted above he had one viable option that would require skills and support he did not have.
I don't think you all are really ready to think about this honestly.
Ann Althouse said...
If I'm a little kid, I want my dad to protect me, not trust assurances from my insane mother.
Don't even pretend you support the splooge stooge.
You built the system that made him utterly powerless to support his children legally.
Althouse and Not Illlnois Resident both take the position that Patrick Clancy should have ignored what the psychiatrist said about his wife and kept her away from her own kids. In tournament bridge we call this resulting the hand -- looking at the way it turned out you should have done something else, but at the time you didn't know how it was going to turn out so you did what seemed to be the right thing. Had Patrick Clancy kept his wife away from her children despite what the psychiatrist said, and things turned out differently, Althouse (and probably commentator Not Illinois Resident) would have condemned that action.
Go to Hell, both of you.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.