CNN Promising to Be Nicer to GOP

[Paranoid Android]

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/sta...118855168?s=20

By not even watching CNN I know this was aimed at Don Lemon. Idc bout him but I believe he spoke up the most and the other dude they fired for his Sunday show I think

As stated in a very simple explanation, the right gets to cry and whine that they are the victims and since they are more or less monolithic in their party and we only have 2 major parties they get to drive their narrative with force. Do fascism and called fascists? Oh no! Cry that the liberal, MSM media is being unfair. CNN has been the worst for this and this is why they are targeted so much in that they fold so easily.

As discussed by others that stating facts and journalism is not opinion. Some of the biggest grievances they can use is Culture War rhetoric where you are supposed to have an opinion or both sides on attacks of marginalized people. Once more the Republican Party moves a one force so they just cry foul.

Yes the both sides thing I believe they were trying even under Zucker, w/o the commentary from hosts I guess. Also we know the person who purchased Warner Media is a conservative so I believe the push of Fox Lite is more what they wanted. Basically bring people in and feed them little by little conservatism to eventually vote that way.

[tehdang]

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/sta...118855168?s=20

By not even watching CNN I know this was aimed at Don Lemon.

Stelter, Harwood, and Cuomo were all much worse than Lemon.

And Lemon likely would still have a job if he didn't call a fifty-year-old female politician "past her prime" and double down by saying "a woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s 30s..." and "Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what the facts are, Google it."

[Cthulhu 2020]

If your purpose is to force Trump to sit quietly, maybe it’s your sense of control that is out of whack.

Or perhaps, if you've ever watched Trump (found liable for sexual assault) at a town hall, you'd realize that he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't ever shut up and he (found liable for sexual assault) tries to dominate the conversation by speaking over people when he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't like what they're saying. Sometimes he (found liable for sexual assault) genuinely needs to sit down and shut up because he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't let other people talk unless they're polishing his (found liable for sexual assault) rod. That's not a sense of control. That's having a basic civil human conversation.

But you seem to want to allow Trump (found liable for sexual assault) to sit there and spew garbage, because you like the guy who's liable for sexual assault.

[Endus]

Or perhaps, if you've ever watched Trump (found liable for sexual assault) at a town hall, you'd realize that he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't ever shut up and he (found liable for sexual assault) tries to dominate the conversation by speaking over people when he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't like what they're saying. Sometimes he (found liable for sexual assault) genuinely needs to sit down and shut up because he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't let other people talk unless they're polishing his (found liable for sexual assault) rod. That's not a sense of control. That's having a basic civil human conversation.

But you seem to want to allow Trump (found liable for sexual assault) to sit there and spew garbage, because you like the guy who's liable for sexual assault.

Also that in the CNN town hall, he specifically re-slandered one of the women he's been found liable of sexually assaulting. So it's not even off-topic to the Town Hall to bring it up.

[Breccia]

CNN CEO Chris Licht apologizes to staff during internal Monday morning call

Licht told staffers he didn’t recognize himself in a 15,000-word profile story in The Atlantic that published Friday. The story documented his views on CNN’s coverage and his attempts at winning over staffers during his first year on the job.

Some CNN staffers saw the Licht magazine profile as showing poor judgment at a time when ratings are falling and employees are openly rebelling against his decision last month to air a Donald Trump

As in, the sexual batterer and serial fraud that tehdang repeatedly admits he supports Donald Trump. Not Don Jr, who is also a serial fraud, but has not been found liable for sexual battery.

town hall with hundreds of his cheering fans. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav wasn’t pleased with the profile, titled “Inside the Meltdown at CNN,” and agreed it was mishandled, according to people familiar with his thinking.

Licht said during the call he understands staffers’ frustration and is intent on earning his employees’ trust, said the people. He didn’t specifically speak to why he participated in The Atlantic profile, in which reporter Tim Alberta spent months with Licht, including joining him at the gym during a personal training session and attending backstage CNN programming rehearsals. Licht’s remarks were short, said the people, who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

A CNN spokesperson declined to comment.

They say the first step is to admit you have a problem. "I drink more than I should" "I put off assignments till the last minute" "I keep telling objective lies, stealing other people's money, and defaming the women that I forced myself on sexually, which are clearly qualities valued in fucking coward-ass pussies like myself". We'll judge them by their actions, of course. The longest journey might begin with a single step, but so does falling down the stairs.

[tehdang]

Or perhaps, if you've ever watched Trump (found liable for sexual assault) at a town hall, you'd realize that he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't ever shut up and he (found liable for sexual assault) tries to dominate the conversation by speaking over people when he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't like what they're saying. Sometimes he (found liable for sexual assault) genuinely needs to sit down and shut up because he (found liable for sexual assault) doesn't let other people talk unless they're polishing his (found liable for sexual assault) rod. That's not a sense of control. That's having a basic civil human conversation.

But you seem to want to allow Trump (found liable for sexual assault) to sit there and spew garbage, because you like the guy who's liable for sexual assault.

Give up on democracy already if your big solution to people voting in ways you wouldn't is to refuse to conduct interviews and merely repeat what's said at rallies and aligned outlets.

I'm also talking about interviews more broadly, since it seems people are advancing the strong argument that it's always bad to interview him if you're not willing to cut off his mic in the middle of an answer (or maybe y'all are just going along with it silently, but actually disagree). If you were actually advancing the weak argument, that some venues or styles are particularly inappropriate, then we might actually agree in part.

If you can just bring yourself to acknowledge that forcing him to sit down and shut up isn't really possible in a free country with political candidates for office, then maybe we can move on to the better ways to persuade independents not to vote for the guy. You know, remind them real close to a primary election all the ways he's unfit for office with tough interviews, instead of just reporting on rallies and ideological outlet sit-downs. Confessing impotence at forcing someone to do something is one thing, and maybe in times of frustration people will go to it. But showing impotence at actually interviewing candidates for president is some pretty dark despair. Is this really starting to tear at the roots of your idealism; such that free and fair elections in democracy must be handled without interviews involving question and answer? Tip the scales because certain candidates deserve it?. That's what it's looking like from where I'm looking, with all the talk from many corners about inventing special rules.

[unfilteredJW]

Guy with rapist avatar who posts misinformation and lies while supporting a rapist wants rapist to be able to spew his lies and misinformation and slander a sexual assault victim without question or you aren't for democracy.

I'm shocked.

[Endus]

Give up on democracy already if your big solution to people voting in ways you wouldn't is to refuse to conduct interviews and merely repeat what's said at rallies and aligned outlets.

Again, nobody is protesting "people voting in ways you wouldn't". We're objecting to outright lies and misinformation and hate speech.

If you can't tell the difference, it's because you're so deep into the latter you've lost touch with reality.

If you can just bring yourself to acknowledge that forcing him to sit down and shut up isn't really possible in a free country with political candidates for office, then maybe we can move on to the better ways to persuade independents not to vote for the guy.

Again, literally no one has talked about "forcing someone to sit down and shut up". Just denying them a private platform on the basis of simple ethical standards for objective truth.

You're pushing an implicit false equivalency, here. If you brought on a musician to talk about their new album and they started talking about how awesome Hitler was and how he had great ideas, you'd shut that interview down for the same reasons.

And no; there isn't a magical exception for politicians. If anything, it's more important to stand for truth when it comes to politics.

You know, remind them real close to a primary election all the ways he's unfit for office with tough interviews,

You can't conduct an interview with someone who's lying to you.

An interview is meant to ask questions of the interviewee and get honest answers from said interviewee. If they're lying to you, they're being disrespectful to you and your audience and the interview serves no purpose as an interview. That's why you put an end to it.

instead of just reporting on rallies and ideological outlet sit-downs. Confessing impotence at forcing someone to do something is one thing, and maybe in times of frustration people will go to it. But showing impotence at actually interviewing candidates for president is some pretty dark despair. Is this really starting to tear at the roots of your idealism; such that free and fair elections in democracy must be handled without interviews involving question and answer? Tip the scales because certain candidates deserve it?. That's what it's looking like from where I'm looking, with all the talk from many corners about inventing special rules.

Now you're just engaging in weak-ass ad hominem attacks. You used to hold yourself to a higher standard than the bullshit you've been spreading lately.

[Forogil]

You can't conduct an interview with someone who's lying to you.

An interview is meant to ask questions of the interviewee and get honest answers from said interviewee. If they're lying to you, they're being disrespectful to you and your audience and the interview serves no purpose as an interview. That's why you put an end to it.

Professionals who do interviews should be able to handle people that lie to them, as that's fairly common.

There are even guides for handling it - https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/do...erview-a-liar/ (at least for documentaries - I'm sure there's something similar for journalists). However, handling it requires both that the interviewer know the facts (and the likely lies) and that they are willing to hand out enough rope.

Stopping the interview just because of lies is an indication that the one conducting the interview weren't prepared for the interview.

However, it doesn't mean that every journalists have to interview every liar.

You're pushing an implicit false equivalency, here. If you brought on a musician to talk about their new album and they started talking about how awesome Hitler was and how he had great ideas, you'd shut that interview down for the same reasons.

That's different (unless you are interviewing some Nazi-punk band); and also in this case giving them enough rope might be a good idea.

But if the interview isn't staying on the subject then you can shut it down; and it doesn't matter whether they want to discuss the awesomeness of Robert F Kennedy Jr, or of JFK.

[Ivanstone]

As in, the sexual batterer and serial fraud that tehdang repeatedly admits he supports Donald Trump. Not Don Jr, who is also a serial fraud, but has not been found liable for sexual battery.

To be unfair to Don Jr he still supports a serial sex offender (Dad) and is engaged to a sex pest (Kimberly) so I wouldn't give him a pass.

[Endus]

Professionals who do interviews should be able to handle people that lie to them, as that's fairly common.

There are even guides for handling it - https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/do...erview-a-liar/ (at least for documentaries - I'm sure there's something similar for journalists). However, handling it requires both that the interviewer know the facts (and the likely lies) and that they are willing to hand out enough rope.

Stopping the interview just because of lies is an indication that the one conducting the interview weren't prepared for the interview.

However, it doesn't mean that every journalists have to interview every liar.

This all presumes the goal is to catch them in those lies and have them fall apart when you do. It doesn't work with a figure like Trump, who lies as easily as he breathes, and will just flatly deny that you've caught them out when you contradict them. Your subject needs a sense of shame about the lies, and Trump has no shame.

You also generally don't want to televise that interview live if you can in any way avoid it, because the process of digging into that truth is necessarily going to be complex and you're going to have to be reactive to the subject's phrasings, and it's a huge risk if things go south, as they did in the Trump Town Hall.

[beanman12345]

Some fun speculation regarding whether Trump could be indicted in Florida or DC based on the CNN town hall.

[tehdang]

Professionals who do interviews should be able to handle people that lie to them, as that's fairly common.

There are even guides for handling it - https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/do...erview-a-liar/ (at least for documentaries - I'm sure there's something similar for journalists). However, handling it requires both that the interviewer know the facts (and the likely lies) and that they are willing to hand out enough rope.

Stopping the interview just because of lies is an indication that the one conducting the interview weren't prepared for the interview.

However, it doesn't mean that every journalists have to interview every liar.

Hell, if you get a professional and get through several topics of national importance, you might only need one interview for the primaries and one interview for the general (speaking generally of what a network might aim for and achieve and benefit the viewer). In the alternate, the single interview is spent debating and talking over the interviewer and only a topic and a half is reached. Still informative to the voter and showing the candidate in a negative light.

That's different (unless you are interviewing some Nazi-punk band); and also in this case giving them enough rope might be a good idea.

But if the interview isn't staying on the subject then you can shut it down; and it doesn't matter whether they want to discuss the awesomeness of Robert F Kennedy Jr, or of JFK.

I know this isn't to me, but I do want to comment that I'm restricting my discussion of "obviously good guidelines to practice" and "obviously bad ideas, do the people suggesting them have any idea of their consequence?" to government officials of the elected and appointed variety as well as candidates for government office. Viewers of a Taylor Swift interview aren't confronted with her as a possible decision on a ballot that will determine who issues executive orders for the next several years and is tasked with managing the administrative state. Whether it focuses on her music and other projects, or things totally different from it, characterizes the interview itself and is akin to an expression of art. In short, less critical to a democracy.

[Forogil]

This all presumes the goal is to catch them in those lies and have them fall apart when you do. It doesn't work with a figure like Trump, who lies as easily as he breathes, and will just flatly deny that you've caught them out when you contradict them. Your subject needs a sense of shame about the lies, and Trump has no shame.

If you cannot do it, then you shouldn't do the interview.

Stopping the interview indicates that something unexpected happened, and if Trump telling something other than the truth was unexpected by the interviewer they haven't prepared at all.

And to counter the argument that Trump is a mastermind that no-one can handle, here are some interviews that Trump have walked out from - https://www.newsweek.com/every-inter...morgan-1699661

[Endus]

If you cannot do it, then you shouldn't do the interview.

Stopping the interview indicates that something unexpected happened, and if Trump telling something other than the truth was unexpected by the interviewer they haven't prepared at all.

And to counter the argument that Trump is a mastermind that no-one can handle, here are some interviews that Trump have walked out from - https://www.newsweek.com/every-inter...morgan-1699661

I'm not arguing you can't interview Trump, I'm pointing to the approaches with the Trump Town Hall which categorically failed to uphold any kind of journalistic integrity in their approach.

[Paranoid Android]

I watched Jake Tapper interview, town hall with Nikki Haley. He didn't do much better.

would've been good for Nikki Haley to be met with more pushback than this when she tried to blame trans youth for suicide attempts by cisgender girls during last night's CNN town hall

Vid embedded.

Leading tweet but listen and Haley immediately implies the rise of all teenage female suicide deaths, attempts are attributed by somehow trans identity. No call out on this just blank stare by Tapper.

Once more cause I have seen this thread get sidetracked by a certain person. I caution don't discuss trans-identity issues and just for this thread focus on the bs lies Haley does just like Trump and is left unchecked.

There is a thread by Aaron Rupar if you want more.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Give up on democracy already if your big solution to people voting in ways you wouldn't is to refuse to conduct interviews and merely repeat what's said at rallies and aligned outlets.

I'm also talking about interviews more broadly, since it seems people are advancing the strong argument that it's always bad to interview him if you're not willing to cut off his mic in the middle of an answer (or maybe y'all are just going along with it silently, but actually disagree). If you were actually advancing the weak argument, that some venues or styles are particularly inappropriate, then we might actually agree in part.

If you can just bring yourself to acknowledge that forcing him to sit down and shut up isn't really possible in a free country with political candidates for office, then maybe we can move on to the better ways to persuade independents not to vote for the guy. You know, remind them real close to a primary election all the ways he's unfit for office with tough interviews, instead of just reporting on rallies and ideological outlet sit-downs. Confessing impotence at forcing someone to do something is one thing, and maybe in times of frustration people will go to it. But showing impotence at actually interviewing candidates for president is some pretty dark despair. Is this really starting to tear at the roots of your idealism; such that free and fair elections in democracy must be handled without interviews involving question and answer? Tip the scales because certain candidates deserve it?. That's what it's looking like from where I'm looking, with all the talk from many corners about inventing special rules.

A whole lot of words to miss the point entirely. Trump needs to sit down and shut up sometimes because all he does is try to talk over people. A conversation involves a back and forth. Debates involve that same polite back and forth, and traditionally challenge candidates who say untrue and demonstrably false things. Trump never shuts up, he interrupts people, he spews rhetoric constantly, and never gets any real push back.

And yes, he's still a sex offender and is very likely being indicted for stealing classified information as well. How can people possibly see this man as a leader of the US?

[Breccia]

And yes, he's still a sex offender and is very likely being indicted for stealing classified information as well. How can people possibly see this man as a leader of the US?

Now now, before we get into cowards afraid to admit they support Trump and his sexual battery, let's talk about an on-topic coward.

In the ongoing effort to dig their way out of the hole, CNN runs a fact check on something he said on FOX News. You know, days later, wrong event.

“We had so much oil we didn’t know what to do with it. We bought a lot of it for very little for the strategic national reserves,” Trump said at a Fox event in Iowa. Moments later, after criticizing President Joe Biden for selling a large quantity of oil from the reserve, Trump boasted once more about his own supposed discount purchase: “Think of it: 75 million barrels, and I bought it for peanuts, and Congress – I had to fight Congress, and the pricing was so crazy and so good.”

Trump did propose to buy 77 million barrels for the reserve in 2020 as oil prices cratered because of the Covid-19 pandemic. But the Democratic-controlled Congress rejected the $3 billion in funding that would have paid for the purchase, describing it as a subsidy to big oil companies.

Now, CNN goes on to say after-the-fact that, yes, it would have been a good deal. But Trump said he did something that he objectively didn't.

Still, even CNN fact-checking the wrong event days later is more bravery than someone who refuses to say "I support Trump's policies, but don't support sexual assault" because, this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn at this point, must therefore support sexual assault.

[The Stormbringer]

I watched Jake Tapper interview, town hall with Nikki Haley. He didn't do much better.

would've been good for Nikki Haley to be met with more pushback than this when she tried to blame trans youth for suicide attempts by cisgender girls during last night's CNN town hall

Vid embedded.

Leading tweet but listen and Haley immediately implies the rise of all teenage female suicide deaths, attempts are attributed by somehow trans identity. No call out on this just blank stare by Tapper.

Once more cause I have seen this thread get sidetracked by a certain person. I caution don't discuss trans-identity issues and just for this thread focus on the bs lies Haley does just like Trump and is left unchecked.

There is a thread by Aaron Rupar if you want more.

You mean, young females who may be killing themselves because they've just gotten teen pregnant but now can't get abortions? Those are the ones supposedly killing themselves because... "the trans"???? Yeah, totally. I buy it! /s

[Shadowferal]

CNN chief executive Chris Licht to leave network after weeks of criticism