I think party of the problem is that your example of one person making the case for Gore and another making the case for Bush, is that that model doesn't seem to exist anymore. Instead, you have people who won't answer a direct question and if the interviewer presses them, they repeat themselves, getting louder and louder, and talking over the interviewer. There's little attempt to have an honest discourse.
I've always been a huge Chuck Todd fan and I felt so much pride hearing him go off on Sunday. I'm glad someone finally had the nerve to say it and to do so in such a public forum. That took a lot of courage.
NBC's biggest mistake was not giving McDaniel more of a rollout with employees. Instead they just hired her and said you figure it out. They should've gotten the opinion of their major on-air personalities and then had her meet privately to clear the air.
>To dismiss ALL of those people as ignorant cretins and racists seems to be a major oversimplification — and, at some level, an abdication of the mission of journalism.
So you yourself may not be a racist, but at the end of the day you voted for a racist who refused to accept the results of a fair and free election.
Re: Putting MAGA on the air:
Someone like Marc Short, who was chief of staff to Mike Pence, is on NBC News all the time and he is just fine.
If you are going to put someone on the air who tried to overturn the 2020 election or believes it was stolen, you need to lead with that, and always give viewers that context for when they speak.
>But it is worth understanding (or trying to understand them) as a way to better grasp where a large chunk of the country is coming from.
I just don't get why we need to "understand" people who continue to insist 2+2= 5. It's exasperating and I don't think it's led to anything productive.
RRMc does not fit the bill as a "responsible Republican voice." She is a volatile personality who specifically badmouthed some of the bigger names at NBC. Hiring RRMc was like throwing a stick of dynamite into the NBC newsroom. Of course it was bound to blow up.
Chris, I think the question that you and Paul Farhi ask is the wrong question: "Who's the 'responsible’ Trump voice?" Wrong because there is no such thing. As you know, anyone who is a Trump voice is by definition an election denier, and anyone who is an election denier is a liar. To defend McDaniel's hiring as giving the Trump perspective is to put someone on the air who has a history of lying. How would anyone know if she were telling the truth now? She is beyond trustworthy.
Besides, it is not that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS do not give Trump airtime. They cover his speeches, his social media postings, and all. There is no need for anyone on any network to give a "Trump" perspective. What the commentators do on television is to give analysis. In addition, anyone who wants to hear a pro-Trump voice can watch Hannity.
Do you really think Stephen Miller believes the election was stolen, as you say, or that he knows the truth but lying is a political strategy. What McDaniel could have done is admit that she knew she was lying and that lying is what the Republicans do all the time.
Since she’s out there maybe an opportunity for Kellyann Alternative Facts Conway.
Is there ever a justification for intentionally put on someone who will lie.
Would we put on joseph goebbels to get his side of the story?
I understand the dilemma here, but ultimately, I fall on the side of those saying that the election deniers cannot and should never be given a voice on the airwaves. Really, what they are advocating is a highly dangerous lie, one that has already led to deaths (on January 6, 2021) and which seeks to challenge our centuries-old, peaceful transfer of power in elections.
Who else could they use? How about Ken Buck? Liz Cheney? Adam Kinzinger? Or, any of the other Republicans who are STILL Republicans (and they don't come much more conservative than Cheney), but who still believe in the institutions of our government? There ARE options out there other than election deniers.
Chris, aren't you missing an extremely important distinction? There's a huge difference between having someone on air representing/explaining/analyzing a pro-Trump position (e.g., as a panelist on a discussion roundtable) and *hiring* a Trump spokesperson (or former spokesperson) with a robust track record of public lies and gaslighting as a salaried contributor. I'm all for having multiple sides of an issue in the conversation (yes, even liars, provided that there's someone on the panel, perhaps the moderator, who will do their best to counter the lies). But I completely agree with Chuck Todd et al. that hiring RM reflected terrible judgment. Would love to hear your and others' thoughts about the distinction I'm making.
I’ll tell you what I don’t think is helpful - having Chip Roy on Jake Tappers show & just letting him filibuster most of the time not answering questions & just repeating the same old nonsense.
As a journalist, my role has been to seek out the truth when reporting the news. Sometimes people or organizations bend the truth or outright lie in order to promote or protect their interests. It's my job to call bullshit on that (if my internal sensors go off), and query someone I trust or check the record to determine what's the truth. Then, I report what I've found. Example: "The school district superintendent says he had no personal relationship with his secretary, but she claims they had a long-term affair -- corroborated by her colleagues." (Confronted with this, and a story in the newspaper, he resigned. Turns out it wasn't the first time for him.) But what is a MSNBC anchor to do with someone like McDaniel who lies, openly, to the anchor? "Wait a minute Ronna, that's a load of crap. Let's go to the record ... " It can get old, fast -- especially when Ronna is getting $600k from the network. Bottomline: Journalists should get to the truth and not brook those who try to bend it or block it. Hope that makes sense.
A couple of comments: 1) I appreciate you bringing me back from the brink. I am ALWAYS tempted to throw out the GOP (TNP? Trump's New Party?) view. But, you are right, the mission is not merely to give them voice, but for the rest of us to understand them. 2) I don't know how much of a solution this is, but if one must give voice to those who espouse the lies, perhaps it's no longer a binary choice. Instead of the media having a Dem, and a Repupblican, maybe it's now a trinary choice: Dem representation, Old-style GOP representation, and Trumpian representation, particularly on "balanced" panels. Let the non-Trumpians call out the Trumpians' falsehoods as a way to balance the lies. I wonder, however, if ANY solution will work in the near term. We have retreated to our tribal news sources, and those Trump supporters who need to hear counter views only watch Fox and the like, so would never get the balanced view point laid in front of them, anyway. Those of us watching CNN and MSNBC already know the stolen election myth is a lie.
One last thought...as Fox, OAN, and the like are not legitimate news orgs (in my opinion), perhaps they should not be treated like peers in the business. Perhaps they should be covered (actively), but under the category of "Entertainment", and their disinformation exposed and refuted with facts.
Those seeking employment at reputable news outlets should be asked in job interviews if they believe the 2020 election was stolen, making the false claim a litmus test of sorts for hiring. Same question, just different outcomes for the answer.
Chris - your comment “…McDaniel had been complicit (at least at some level) in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election…” is the understatement of the year. McDaniel had participated in the Fake Elector scheme, partially funded it, and was key to ensuring some of the fake elector ballots were flown from Wisconsin on Jan. 6th so Ron Johnson could try to hand them to Mike Pence. She was deeply involved, and is still at risk to be indicted for her efforts. She not only took orders from Trump town, but then executed those down the line. In a sense, hiring McDaniel to gather insight into Trump World would be like hiring Luca Brasi to get insights into the world of Don Corleone. I suppose hiring Rudy Giuliani would be similar. Would hiring Kelly Anne Conway have been better?
Chuck Todd asked the right question - when will you ever know when she is not lying?
I do not disagree - having an opposing viewpoint is important, however, it needs to come from someone who is credible, and who can be trusted to be honest. Otherwise, most watchers/listeners will not give whatever that person says any credence.
The alternative view point must come with someone who has integrity and credibility. Then it could be meaningful, and could possibly open minds.
This is the dilemma when lies have completely overtaken one side of our two-sided political system and its media promoters. Engaging Trump supporters by definition normalizes that egregious dishonesty. I'm not sure it is navigable, hence my fear for America's future.
This is a unique situation. On January 6 2021 a well planned assault on our seat of government encouraged and supported by Donald Trump was televised. The Vice President of the United States was threatened with deadly violence. Donald Trump as President was delighted by what he saw and delayed calling the National Guard for several hours.
The Republican Party has totally failed the American people and allowed Trump to rule over the Republican Party as a Fascist Dictator.
These are obvious and incontrovertible facts.
To give anyone a voice who supports this treasonous betrayal of our Constitution and our democratic political system is to be complicit. Unfortunately that is the harsh reality.
If the media's goal is to present the truth, you cannot give those who live in an alternate reality free access to mainstream media. Did we not learn from Kelly Ann Conway's gaslighting the public by claiming lies and falsehoods were just alternative facts?
Do we really want multiple version's of Russia Today in the US? Fox is bad enough. If you allow insurrectionists and other anti-democratic voices to pollute the media, you become complicit. These people aren't doing anything but propogating disinformation and propaganda. This need to give magats access because it's "fair" is bovine excrement.
The Republican Party wrote itself off. Eventually another party will arise from the damage caused by Trumpism.
The truth matters 7/24/65.
You are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
I think party of the problem is that your example of one person making the case for Gore and another making the case for Bush, is that that model doesn't seem to exist anymore. Instead, you have people who won't answer a direct question and if the interviewer presses them, they repeat themselves, getting louder and louder, and talking over the interviewer. There's little attempt to have an honest discourse.
I've always been a huge Chuck Todd fan and I felt so much pride hearing him go off on Sunday. I'm glad someone finally had the nerve to say it and to do so in such a public forum. That took a lot of courage.
NBC's biggest mistake was not giving McDaniel more of a rollout with employees. Instead they just hired her and said you figure it out. They should've gotten the opinion of their major on-air personalities and then had her meet privately to clear the air.
>To dismiss ALL of those people as ignorant cretins and racists seems to be a major oversimplification — and, at some level, an abdication of the mission of journalism.
So you yourself may not be a racist, but at the end of the day you voted for a racist who refused to accept the results of a fair and free election.
Re: Putting MAGA on the air:
Someone like Marc Short, who was chief of staff to Mike Pence, is on NBC News all the time and he is just fine.
If you are going to put someone on the air who tried to overturn the 2020 election or believes it was stolen, you need to lead with that, and always give viewers that context for when they speak.
>But it is worth understanding (or trying to understand them) as a way to better grasp where a large chunk of the country is coming from.
I just don't get why we need to "understand" people who continue to insist 2+2= 5. It's exasperating and I don't think it's led to anything productive.
RRMc does not fit the bill as a "responsible Republican voice." She is a volatile personality who specifically badmouthed some of the bigger names at NBC. Hiring RRMc was like throwing a stick of dynamite into the NBC newsroom. Of course it was bound to blow up.
Chris, I think the question that you and Paul Farhi ask is the wrong question: "Who's the 'responsible’ Trump voice?" Wrong because there is no such thing. As you know, anyone who is a Trump voice is by definition an election denier, and anyone who is an election denier is a liar. To defend McDaniel's hiring as giving the Trump perspective is to put someone on the air who has a history of lying. How would anyone know if she were telling the truth now? She is beyond trustworthy.
Besides, it is not that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS do not give Trump airtime. They cover his speeches, his social media postings, and all. There is no need for anyone on any network to give a "Trump" perspective. What the commentators do on television is to give analysis. In addition, anyone who wants to hear a pro-Trump voice can watch Hannity.
For my take on McDaniel, see my blog “Politics and History “? https://politicsandhistory.substack.com/p/team-american-democracy?utm_campaign=email-post&r=5xjy4&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Do you really think Stephen Miller believes the election was stolen, as you say, or that he knows the truth but lying is a political strategy. What McDaniel could have done is admit that she knew she was lying and that lying is what the Republicans do all the time.
Since she’s out there maybe an opportunity for Kellyann Alternative Facts Conway.
Is there ever a justification for intentionally put on someone who will lie.
Would we put on joseph goebbels to get his side of the story?
I understand the dilemma here, but ultimately, I fall on the side of those saying that the election deniers cannot and should never be given a voice on the airwaves. Really, what they are advocating is a highly dangerous lie, one that has already led to deaths (on January 6, 2021) and which seeks to challenge our centuries-old, peaceful transfer of power in elections.
Who else could they use? How about Ken Buck? Liz Cheney? Adam Kinzinger? Or, any of the other Republicans who are STILL Republicans (and they don't come much more conservative than Cheney), but who still believe in the institutions of our government? There ARE options out there other than election deniers.
I think there is a difference between those who reluctantly claim the election was stolen and those who actively participated in trying to steal it.
Chris, aren't you missing an extremely important distinction? There's a huge difference between having someone on air representing/explaining/analyzing a pro-Trump position (e.g., as a panelist on a discussion roundtable) and *hiring* a Trump spokesperson (or former spokesperson) with a robust track record of public lies and gaslighting as a salaried contributor. I'm all for having multiple sides of an issue in the conversation (yes, even liars, provided that there's someone on the panel, perhaps the moderator, who will do their best to counter the lies). But I completely agree with Chuck Todd et al. that hiring RM reflected terrible judgment. Would love to hear your and others' thoughts about the distinction I'm making.
I’ll tell you what I don’t think is helpful - having Chip Roy on Jake Tappers show & just letting him filibuster most of the time not answering questions & just repeating the same old nonsense.
As a journalist, my role has been to seek out the truth when reporting the news. Sometimes people or organizations bend the truth or outright lie in order to promote or protect their interests. It's my job to call bullshit on that (if my internal sensors go off), and query someone I trust or check the record to determine what's the truth. Then, I report what I've found. Example: "The school district superintendent says he had no personal relationship with his secretary, but she claims they had a long-term affair -- corroborated by her colleagues." (Confronted with this, and a story in the newspaper, he resigned. Turns out it wasn't the first time for him.) But what is a MSNBC anchor to do with someone like McDaniel who lies, openly, to the anchor? "Wait a minute Ronna, that's a load of crap. Let's go to the record ... " It can get old, fast -- especially when Ronna is getting $600k from the network. Bottomline: Journalists should get to the truth and not brook those who try to bend it or block it. Hope that makes sense.
A couple of comments: 1) I appreciate you bringing me back from the brink. I am ALWAYS tempted to throw out the GOP (TNP? Trump's New Party?) view. But, you are right, the mission is not merely to give them voice, but for the rest of us to understand them. 2) I don't know how much of a solution this is, but if one must give voice to those who espouse the lies, perhaps it's no longer a binary choice. Instead of the media having a Dem, and a Repupblican, maybe it's now a trinary choice: Dem representation, Old-style GOP representation, and Trumpian representation, particularly on "balanced" panels. Let the non-Trumpians call out the Trumpians' falsehoods as a way to balance the lies. I wonder, however, if ANY solution will work in the near term. We have retreated to our tribal news sources, and those Trump supporters who need to hear counter views only watch Fox and the like, so would never get the balanced view point laid in front of them, anyway. Those of us watching CNN and MSNBC already know the stolen election myth is a lie.
One last thought...as Fox, OAN, and the like are not legitimate news orgs (in my opinion), perhaps they should not be treated like peers in the business. Perhaps they should be covered (actively), but under the category of "Entertainment", and their disinformation exposed and refuted with facts.
Those seeking employment at reputable news outlets should be asked in job interviews if they believe the 2020 election was stolen, making the false claim a litmus test of sorts for hiring. Same question, just different outcomes for the answer.
Chris - your comment “…McDaniel had been complicit (at least at some level) in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election…” is the understatement of the year. McDaniel had participated in the Fake Elector scheme, partially funded it, and was key to ensuring some of the fake elector ballots were flown from Wisconsin on Jan. 6th so Ron Johnson could try to hand them to Mike Pence. She was deeply involved, and is still at risk to be indicted for her efforts. She not only took orders from Trump town, but then executed those down the line. In a sense, hiring McDaniel to gather insight into Trump World would be like hiring Luca Brasi to get insights into the world of Don Corleone. I suppose hiring Rudy Giuliani would be similar. Would hiring Kelly Anne Conway have been better?
Chuck Todd asked the right question - when will you ever know when she is not lying?
I do not disagree - having an opposing viewpoint is important, however, it needs to come from someone who is credible, and who can be trusted to be honest. Otherwise, most watchers/listeners will not give whatever that person says any credence.
The alternative view point must come with someone who has integrity and credibility. Then it could be meaningful, and could possibly open minds.
This is the dilemma when lies have completely overtaken one side of our two-sided political system and its media promoters. Engaging Trump supporters by definition normalizes that egregious dishonesty. I'm not sure it is navigable, hence my fear for America's future.
This is a unique situation. On January 6 2021 a well planned assault on our seat of government encouraged and supported by Donald Trump was televised. The Vice President of the United States was threatened with deadly violence. Donald Trump as President was delighted by what he saw and delayed calling the National Guard for several hours.
The Republican Party has totally failed the American people and allowed Trump to rule over the Republican Party as a Fascist Dictator.
These are obvious and incontrovertible facts.
To give anyone a voice who supports this treasonous betrayal of our Constitution and our democratic political system is to be complicit. Unfortunately that is the harsh reality.
If the media's goal is to present the truth, you cannot give those who live in an alternate reality free access to mainstream media. Did we not learn from Kelly Ann Conway's gaslighting the public by claiming lies and falsehoods were just alternative facts?
Do we really want multiple version's of Russia Today in the US? Fox is bad enough. If you allow insurrectionists and other anti-democratic voices to pollute the media, you become complicit. These people aren't doing anything but propogating disinformation and propaganda. This need to give magats access because it's "fair" is bovine excrement.
The Republican Party wrote itself off. Eventually another party will arise from the damage caused by Trumpism.
The truth matters 7/24/65.
You are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.