#5 is news to me, link?
6 Likes
Call tRump he’ll talk your ears off.
6 Likes
I get this but It’s also not like there is some magic wording like a Harry Potter spell that is going to turn them into an honest person nor break the illusion and make the people who vote for them realize that they follow racist anti-american, anti-democracy dictator coddlers and/or that that is a bad thing.
8 Likes
Stephanopoulos is an empty suit and a Beltway access journalist. This is going to be as good as it gets with him.
Some wear the uniform but don’t follow the ideology; some don’t wear the uniform but do follow the ideology.
Cotton is certainly a coward, but all fascists are as long as they have to answer to der Fuhrer. He’s still one of the more dangerous ones in Congress.
11 Likes
They rarely do better. Instead of saying something like, “Given your weaselly, mealy-mouthed, evasive response, I can only conclude you support Trump’s opinion and autocratic rule,” they just cave and move on to another topic.
Journalists dismiss this lack of ability to call BS by playing the “but journalists need to be impartial!” card.
4 Likes
I think he has taken more than just the tip when it comes to Q
5 Likes
Oh, I realize that. They’re in for life and no amount of uncovered lies, contradictory facts, reprehensible behavior or even personal consequences for their terrible choices will bring them back. But that doesn’t mean journalists shouldn’t bother trying to expose the truth.
It’s largely because of the media’s toothlessness that treason, Nazis and anti-vaxxing are everyday aspects of society now. They’ve been so eager to “both sides” positions that shouldn’t even be in question that they’ve legitimized those views. I’m not saying that journalists should engage in propaganda, but they should have a devotion to finding the truth and informing the public, as well as a basic sense of ethics and enough bravery to ask hard questions. Letting people who have been getting away with obvious lies get away with even MORE obvious lies when you have a chance to contradict them and hold them accountable for their words does nothing but strengthen their position and lower the morale of every decent person who wants to see these monsters squirm when they’re finally, finally faced with critical thought rather than blind acceptance.
7 Likes
Stephanopolis had already asked him the question - was the question partial or impartial? The status does not depend on the answer.
The fact is Stephanopolis allowed him to evade when he could have easily pressed the question harder.
Cotton for his part could have replied that his statements about the war make his position clear; and he will not allow the a question to trap him into criticizing a colleage and the leader of his party. But clearly from his lame response, he’s not smart enough to think on his feet. And certainly not smart enough to make a good president.
1 Like
Precisely. First rule of weasel GOPers. Never answer the question you are asked, only the one you wish you were asked. There’s always a way to rephrase the answer you want to give to roughly approximate the question that was asked. The skill to do this determines how high you will rise in the party (unless you are wealthy in which case you may simply buy your way up). Before any interview they already have the set of answers they are going to give, regardless of the questions. Even interviewing them at all is arguably pointless because all it does is give them a platform for their talking points.
11 Likes
Coincidentally, my rock band’s name is “The Sycophantic Poltroons”
5 Likes
George, here’s how it’s done.
6 Likes
My point wasn’t that the original question was impartial. It was that Stephanopoulis could (and should) have judged Cotton’s answer more harshly, but journalists are fearful of rendering such opinions because they are afraid of being accused of being impartial.
5 Likes
I assume even TV news interviewers know how to hold someone to account, at least better than this. But that’s the opposite of their job. If Stephanopoulos really beat up on someone – or even allowed them to do it to themselves – it’d be the last chance he ever got. The trick to being a “tough interviewer” is guaranteeing that your guest will come out of it OK, because that’s the only way to book them in the first place.
This is very obvious with the supposedly “brutal” style of interview that’s so popular in the UK. The assholes on Newsnight et al. make an artform of sounding like their guests have been sent to the [principal’s] office, while somehow never quite springing the trap. After a while you realise it’s all a massive, cynical fraud, like watching some authoritarian make-a-wish kid win a round against Triple H.
When you think about it, the question is designed so Cotton can’t hurt himself. Who even cares if he does “condemn” Turmp? I mean… condemn him? Yikes! Turmp better not make liberals really mad, they might escalate to finger-wagging!
3 Likes
Tom Cotton refused to explain
Trump’s bizarre stance on Ukraine
And he stuck to his choice
Of losing his voice
When George asked him again and again
From:
6 Likes
Oh, he said plenty of words… “I’m not worried about this fall’s election…”
Balls! That’s all politicians worry about & Stephanopoulos could have called him on it.
But noooooo…
They’ve been that way since the days of Holy St. Raygun; the Media, generally, hasn’t been much better since then, either.
The FDC has made it into an art form, though.
1 Like
To be fair, Tom Cotton’s term doesn’t end until 2026, and in true selfish terms, he probably could care less about this fall’s election.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
