Journalism is a messy business. Sometimes, a reporter walks into a room, describes exactly what they see, and the internet basically explodes. That’s precisely what happened in October 2022 when NBC News correspondent Dasha Burns sat down with then-Senate candidate John Fetterman.
It was his first in-person, on-camera interview since suffering a major stroke. The stakes were sky-high. Pennsylvania was the center of the political universe. Fetterman was using a desktop monitor for closed captioning to help him process Burns' questions—a perfectly reasonable medical accommodation. But when the cameras weren't rolling, things got complicated.
Burns reported a simple observation: during small talk without the captioning, it wasn't clear Fetterman understood everything she was saying.
The backlash was instant. Critics called it ableist. Other reporters, like Kara Swisher and Rebecca Traister, jumped in to say their own experiences with Fetterman were totally different. But looking back with a bit of distance, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Dasha Burns didnt do anything wrong. She did her job. She reported her experience.
The Observation That Started a Firestorm
Most people remember the closed captioning screen. It was a visual focal point of the NBC segment. Fetterman himself was transparent about it, explaining, "I sometimes will hear things in a way that's not perfectly clear." No one really argued with that. The technology allowed him to bridge the gap between his auditory processing challenges and the need to give a coherent interview.
The "scandal" wasn't the interview itself. It was Burns’ framing of the "off-camera" moments.
"In small talk before my interview without captioning, it wasn't clear he understood what I was saying." — Dasha Burns
This single sentence felt like a betrayal to Fetterman’s supporters. They felt she was questioning his cognitive fitness. But here’s the thing: journalism isn't about making a candidate look good. It's about being the eyes and ears for the public. If a candidate for one of the most powerful jobs in the world struggles to follow a conversation without technological aid, that is, by definition, news.
👉 See also: Marcus Fakana: What Really Happened With the Pinno Guy Dubai Sex Twitter Trend
Two Things Can Be True at Once
The loudest critics pointed to other interviews as "proof" that Burns was lying or "bad at small talk." Kara Swisher tweeted that the report was "nonsense."
But let’s be real. It’s entirely possible—even likely—for two different people to have two different interactions with a stroke survivor. Stroke recovery isn't a straight line. It's a jagged graph. Some days are better than others. Some environments are louder or more distracting than others.
Burns wasn't reporting on Fetterman’s entire life. She was reporting on the thirty minutes she spent in a room with him.
Why the "Ableism" Argument Falls Short
Labeling Burns’ reporting as "ableist" was a heavy charge. It suggested she was mocking a disability. But if you watch the footage, she was remarkably professional. She wasn't laughing. She wasn't being cruel. She was explaining the mechanics of how a major political figure was communicating.
If a candidate had a visible physical injury that required a wheelchair, a reporter would mention the wheelchair. If a candidate used a hearing aid, they might mention the hearing aid. Mentioning a processing delay and the need for captioning is just descriptive reporting.
The idea that Dasha Burns didnt do anything wrong is bolstered by the fact that she actually pushed back on her own network’s framing later. On Today, she told Savannah Guthrie that stroke experts emphasized this did not mean Fetterman had cognitive impairment. She provided the medical context. She did the legwork.
✨ Don't miss: Was Vivek at the Inauguration? What Really Happened with Ramaswamy on Jan 20
The Aftermath and the Debate
If you want the ultimate proof that Burns’ reporting was grounded in reality, look at the Fetterman-Oz debate that followed a few weeks later.
During that live televised event, the world saw exactly what Burns had described. Fetterman struggled. He had difficulty with word retrieval. He was using monitors to follow the moderators. It was a difficult watch for many, regardless of their political leanings.
After that debate, the narrative shifted. Suddenly, many of the same pundits who had pilloried Burns for her "unfair" reporting were forced to admit that she had actually given them a heads-up. She hadn't been biased; she had been a canary in the coal mine.
- Journalistic Duty: A reporter's first loyalty is to the truth, not the subject.
- Transparency: Voters deserve to know how a candidate functions in real-time.
- Consistency: Burns asked tough questions of Mehmet Oz too, specifically about his campaign's tone toward Fetterman's health.
What This Teaches Us About Modern Media
We live in a world where everyone wants a hero and a villain. If you liked Fetterman, Burns had to be the villain. If you hated him, she was a hero.
But she was just a reporter.
Honestly, the pressure on her must have been immense. Can you imagine the amount of vitriol in her mentions after that segment aired? Yet she stood by her reporting because it was what she saw with her own eyes. That takes a specific kind of professional backbone that is becoming rarer and rarer in a world of "vibe-based" journalism.
💡 You might also like: Why OKC FOX 25 News is Still the Go-To for Real Oklahoma Coverage
Actionable Takeaways for Consuming News
When you’re reading or watching a controversial report like this, it’s easy to get swept up in the outrage. Here is how to keep a level head:
- Look for Descriptive vs. Evaluative Language: Burns said "it wasn't clear he understood," which describes her perception. She didn't say "he is unfit for office," which would be an evaluation.
- Check for Conflicts: Did other reporters have a different experience? Yes. Does that mean the first reporter is lying? Not necessarily. Look for the "why" behind the difference.
- Wait for the Context: Often, the full story doesn't come out until weeks later (like the debate). Don't form a permanent opinion based on a 30-second clip on Twitter.
- Value Transparency: Support journalists who show you the "how" of their reporting, even when it’s uncomfortable or makes people angry.
The legacy of the Burns-Fetterman interview isn't one of "bad journalism." It’s a case study in why we need reporters who are willing to describe reality as it is, even when the internet is ready to set them on fire for it.