"I know that they’re going to end up weakening Social Security, because the country is weak. I mean, take a look at outside of the stock market—we’re going through hell. People are going through hell. They have—I believe that number is 50 percent. They say 32 and 33 percent. I believe we have a cumulative inflation of over 50 percent. That means people are, you know, they have to make more than 50 percent more over a fairly short period of time to stay up. They’ve gotten routed. The middle class in our country has been routed. And the middle class largely built our country. And they’ve been treated very, very badly with policy.” (DJT)
At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims? Y'know, actual data, from actual sources, requiring actual quantifiable and verifiable information. And, for good measure, a specific game plan to get better results than just four more years of DJT and whatever he feels like doing?
We've all seen the data that the economy is doing quite well now, inflation is declining, wages are catching up with and even surpassing said inflation in many cases, jobs are plentiful, discretionary income is rising, etc. etc. So hit him with that -- HARD -- and make him answer for it beyond self-serving soundbites claiming that whatever gains are happening, he made it possible and Biden is merely riding his coattails -- again, asking in real time for actual facts to back that up irrefutably. And if he won't or can't do that, let the whole world see it, for as long as it takes.
It's our future at stake. We need better than sham interviews that serve as little more than a platform for him to spew his lies and distortions with no serious attempt to get to the truth and hold him accountable for his words. Better still, just don't interview him at all, and give the airtime over instead to a heartwarming story about a boy and his pet yak. We'd get much more out of that in the end.
I agree because many of his supporters, and I'm not being a snob, are not very well educated and don't understand how inflation and employment figures are determined. Because gas is high they believe inflation is out of control, but gas prices are determined by different factors than most consumer goods. And something no mentions when they talk about housing prices, yes it cost a lot more to buy a house or rent an apt. The other side of that is metric is my house is more than double what I paid for it 12 years ago. A landlord is getting a lot more rent than he was getting 10 years ago. Those people vote too.
You'd swear that none of the anti-Biden MAGAist ever have heard of this thing called the free market economy. Or how supply and demand play into pricing. And what impact disrupted supply chains have on the entire marketplace. And how the Fed controls interest rates more than a President. And that the issues our economy has been facing are true all over the world, where Biden isn't the President. I'm no economist and never even played one on TV. If I can figure all that out, so can they.
“At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?”
The first mistake is believing any reputable interviewer could actually get to that interview him without major stipulations regarding the questions he/she could ask.
And most of his interviews are with his sycophants from Fox; so there’s that!…:)
"At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?"
When the economic incentives for doing so line up. Asking embarrassing questions like that ensures you never get access again. Why would a reporter want to do that when there are always more sycophants ready to kiss the butt of the 'Great Man'?
DJT can give all the MAGA-friendly interviews that time allows him to do, but that is an audience with a glass ceiling on it. If he wants to break beyond that hardcore 30-40 percent crowd, he has to take his act on the road and appear on other networks and in other forums where the undecided or persuadable viewers reside. The media don't have to kiss his ass so much as offer to give that precious air time to Biden and his team to use for their messaging if he can't or won't work with them. They can and should hold out for a better deal with the leverage that they have. DJT can whine all he wants about the lamestream media, but at the end of the day he needs them more than they need him in the heat of a razor-close electoral campaign. There are other stories to cover and other angles to report on. He has just one priority: to get reelected. Advantage: networks.
But "The networks" or "Mainstream media" aren't indivisible monolithic entities. You have individual figures within various news agencies competing for who can get the best scoops. And one of the easiest ways to reliably get good scoops is to cultivate friendly relationships with people who tend to make the news by giving out softball interviews to those figures. All Trump needs is someone in his corner competent enough to do the sort of research on likely interviewers and one or two people who are hungry for stories to sell to the editors that they're willing to lob those softballs over the plate. The advantage is Trump's; and to a similar extent, any major public figure who has an interest in not being interviewed with tough questions.
To date I have seen only three really good interviews of Trump.Jonathan Swan,Chriss Mathews,and Savannah Gruthrie are the three. They rattled off questions with follow up so quickly that Trump didn't even have time to think about his typical word salad non answers.
Chris Mathews was so quick with his questions and followup that Trump couldn't think.That was when Trump said women who had abortions should be prosecuted. But the way to question Trump is to not sit around for his babbling word salads.He really underestimated Swan.Since Swan is an Aussie,I'm sure Trump thought it would be easy.Just the opposite.American journalists are too nice where Foreign journalists get right to the point
I went and watched Chris Matthew's interview Trump on abortion from 7 years ago. I thought he got Trump tap dancing around the issue. Even attacking Chris on the Catholic Church's position. I can see he was trying to avoid answering, but he seems really worse and incoherent In his recent interviews.
David French the other day was looking at the the state of the economy in the Times. In addition to the usual data, he included a study showing that the average net worth of Americans has increased by 37% since Biden took office. That's after accounting for inflation.
I would love to see Stephanie Rule do the same interview. I strongly suspect the outcome would be quite different. Trump doesn't have the male equipment to let that ever happen.
"At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?"
There is a huge lack of good interviewers out there because everyone believes that if you push back on crazy, you will be shut down and nobody will do interviews with you again. I'm seeing it even in independent journalism. Even people who work for themselves let their subjects go on and on when they are demonstrably wrong. They'll ask one or two pushback questions, but when their subjects immediately change the subject to avoid answering, they just let it go. They're afraid of their subjects ending the interview and leaving them without enough footage. It's extremely frustrating. Journalists have the most to lose from interviews these days rather than their subjects. And as this newsletter points out, if politicians don't like a question these days, all they have to do is pitch a fit and problem solved.
I think interviewers believe they need to be neutral and feel they need to allow their subjects to blather on and then allow the public to decide for themselves. I personally feel that is a cop out. The role of the fourth estate is to find the truth and communicate it. I mean that is what investigative journalism is all about, right?
That's where the boy and his yak come in. Lots of good stories to tell out there without having to resort to lies and tribalism -- the opposite of what we need. I'd gladly tune in to a news channel that says, "We interviewed DJT for this segment, but he had nothing to say that met our established journalistic standards for accuracy and integrity, so we will not be showing that on our network." Or, conversely, "We attempted to interview DJT for this story, but his staff told us that we are no longer welcome in their environment. So, moving on to the Biden camp, here is what they have to say about the topic. ..."
I’d be satisfied with the interviewer simply asking “what the hell are you talking about?” As a first step, anyway. It’s mind boggling how bad they are at this point
Pretty much where my mind is. I'd settle for, "You didn't really answer the question I asked, did you?" Then let's see how that fabled memory does. Whale.
I'd love to see some interviewer whip out a jar of Ranch dressing and put it in front of Trump, and then say, have some dressing to with your word salad.
"I know that they’re going to end up weakening Social Security, because the country is weak. I mean, take a look at outside of the stock market—we’re going through hell. People are going through hell. They have—I believe that number is 50 percent. They say 32 and 33 percent. I believe we have a cumulative inflation of over 50 percent. That means people are, you know, they have to make more than 50 percent more over a fairly short period of time to stay up. They’ve gotten routed. The middle class in our country has been routed. And the middle class largely built our country. And they’ve been treated very, very badly with policy.” (DJT)
At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims? Y'know, actual data, from actual sources, requiring actual quantifiable and verifiable information. And, for good measure, a specific game plan to get better results than just four more years of DJT and whatever he feels like doing?
We've all seen the data that the economy is doing quite well now, inflation is declining, wages are catching up with and even surpassing said inflation in many cases, jobs are plentiful, discretionary income is rising, etc. etc. So hit him with that -- HARD -- and make him answer for it beyond self-serving soundbites claiming that whatever gains are happening, he made it possible and Biden is merely riding his coattails -- again, asking in real time for actual facts to back that up irrefutably. And if he won't or can't do that, let the whole world see it, for as long as it takes.
It's our future at stake. We need better than sham interviews that serve as little more than a platform for him to spew his lies and distortions with no serious attempt to get to the truth and hold him accountable for his words. Better still, just don't interview him at all, and give the airtime over instead to a heartwarming story about a boy and his pet yak. We'd get much more out of that in the end.
I agree because many of his supporters, and I'm not being a snob, are not very well educated and don't understand how inflation and employment figures are determined. Because gas is high they believe inflation is out of control, but gas prices are determined by different factors than most consumer goods. And something no mentions when they talk about housing prices, yes it cost a lot more to buy a house or rent an apt. The other side of that is metric is my house is more than double what I paid for it 12 years ago. A landlord is getting a lot more rent than he was getting 10 years ago. Those people vote too.
You'd swear that none of the anti-Biden MAGAist ever have heard of this thing called the free market economy. Or how supply and demand play into pricing. And what impact disrupted supply chains have on the entire marketplace. And how the Fed controls interest rates more than a President. And that the issues our economy has been facing are true all over the world, where Biden isn't the President. I'm no economist and never even played one on TV. If I can figure all that out, so can they.
Absoluty.
“At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?”
The first mistake is believing any reputable interviewer could actually get to that interview him without major stipulations regarding the questions he/she could ask.
And most of his interviews are with his sycophants from Fox; so there’s that!…:)
"At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?"
When the economic incentives for doing so line up. Asking embarrassing questions like that ensures you never get access again. Why would a reporter want to do that when there are always more sycophants ready to kiss the butt of the 'Great Man'?
DJT can give all the MAGA-friendly interviews that time allows him to do, but that is an audience with a glass ceiling on it. If he wants to break beyond that hardcore 30-40 percent crowd, he has to take his act on the road and appear on other networks and in other forums where the undecided or persuadable viewers reside. The media don't have to kiss his ass so much as offer to give that precious air time to Biden and his team to use for their messaging if he can't or won't work with them. They can and should hold out for a better deal with the leverage that they have. DJT can whine all he wants about the lamestream media, but at the end of the day he needs them more than they need him in the heat of a razor-close electoral campaign. There are other stories to cover and other angles to report on. He has just one priority: to get reelected. Advantage: networks.
But "The networks" or "Mainstream media" aren't indivisible monolithic entities. You have individual figures within various news agencies competing for who can get the best scoops. And one of the easiest ways to reliably get good scoops is to cultivate friendly relationships with people who tend to make the news by giving out softball interviews to those figures. All Trump needs is someone in his corner competent enough to do the sort of research on likely interviewers and one or two people who are hungry for stories to sell to the editors that they're willing to lob those softballs over the plate. The advantage is Trump's; and to a similar extent, any major public figure who has an interest in not being interviewed with tough questions.
Another data point: Caitlin Collins with Trump at the "Town Hall".
To date I have seen only three really good interviews of Trump.Jonathan Swan,Chriss Mathews,and Savannah Gruthrie are the three. They rattled off questions with follow up so quickly that Trump didn't even have time to think about his typical word salad non answers.
Did he answer the questions?
Chris Mathews was so quick with his questions and followup that Trump couldn't think.That was when Trump said women who had abortions should be prosecuted. But the way to question Trump is to not sit around for his babbling word salads.He really underestimated Swan.Since Swan is an Aussie,I'm sure Trump thought it would be easy.Just the opposite.American journalists are too nice where Foreign journalists get right to the point
I went and watched Chris Matthew's interview Trump on abortion from 7 years ago. I thought he got Trump tap dancing around the issue. Even attacking Chris on the Catholic Church's position. I can see he was trying to avoid answering, but he seems really worse and incoherent In his recent interviews.
David French the other day was looking at the the state of the economy in the Times. In addition to the usual data, he included a study showing that the average net worth of Americans has increased by 37% since Biden took office. That's after accounting for inflation.
I would love to see Stephanie Rule do the same interview. I strongly suspect the outcome would be quite different. Trump doesn't have the male equipment to let that ever happen.
"The male equipment" - well said!
Exactly. CNBC is supposedly a business and economy oriented broadcast. Their people should be perfectly capable of asking informed questions.
Here's a thought. Like Jamie Dimon, they are agnostic about who wins, and they don't want to lose their purchase if Trump wins in Nov.
One of their people, for quite a long time, was Maria "was she always this vapid" Bartiramo. They don't always hire the brightest
Vapid's a good word for her.
Now she’s a kook. What the heck happened to her?!
"At what point will the professional interviewers, apparently overwhelmed at being in the presence of the Great Man, do what the rest of us, amateurs, would do and ask him for SPECIFICS to back up his bogus, intentionally inflammatory claims?"
There is a huge lack of good interviewers out there because everyone believes that if you push back on crazy, you will be shut down and nobody will do interviews with you again. I'm seeing it even in independent journalism. Even people who work for themselves let their subjects go on and on when they are demonstrably wrong. They'll ask one or two pushback questions, but when their subjects immediately change the subject to avoid answering, they just let it go. They're afraid of their subjects ending the interview and leaving them without enough footage. It's extremely frustrating. Journalists have the most to lose from interviews these days rather than their subjects. And as this newsletter points out, if politicians don't like a question these days, all they have to do is pitch a fit and problem solved.
I think interviewers believe they need to be neutral and feel they need to allow their subjects to blather on and then allow the public to decide for themselves. I personally feel that is a cop out. The role of the fourth estate is to find the truth and communicate it. I mean that is what investigative journalism is all about, right?
That's where the boy and his yak come in. Lots of good stories to tell out there without having to resort to lies and tribalism -- the opposite of what we need. I'd gladly tune in to a news channel that says, "We interviewed DJT for this segment, but he had nothing to say that met our established journalistic standards for accuracy and integrity, so we will not be showing that on our network." Or, conversely, "We attempted to interview DJT for this story, but his staff told us that we are no longer welcome in their environment. So, moving on to the Biden camp, here is what they have to say about the topic. ..."
Yeah, like when news reporters say So and So did not reply to our request for a comment.
I’d be satisfied with the interviewer simply asking “what the hell are you talking about?” As a first step, anyway. It’s mind boggling how bad they are at this point
As Rick Wilson says, everything Trump touches dies.
Pretty much where my mind is. I'd settle for, "You didn't really answer the question I asked, did you?" Then let's see how that fabled memory does. Whale.
I'd love to see some interviewer whip out a jar of Ranch dressing and put it in front of Trump, and then say, have some dressing to with your word salad.
Pretty sure he prefers Russian though.