Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election thread


pfife

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

ls interesting that at Politico's site the headline is: "Harris sidesteps the spotlight when it comes to her identity" which is a much less negative spin and the article is actually pretty positive. 

That headline sucks too, IMO. 

The issue for me is this really shouldn't be a story at all... And I suspect that Kamala, by declining to engage and to let Trump dictate the terms of debate, deprives outlets of a juicy story and drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That headline sucks too, IMO. 

The issue for me is this really shouldn't be a story at all... And I suspect that Kamala, by declining to engage and to let Trump dictate the terms of debate, deprives outlets of a juicy story and drama.

They’re creating drama out of it right now, and at some point the story is going to be about the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

And I suspect that Kamala, by declining to engage and to let Trump dictate the terms of debate, deprives outlets of a juicy story and drama.

I'm biased of course, but the they way Bash pleaded for more "Is that all?" just encapsulated exactly how needy the media is for click bait as opposed to substance. I just don't think it plays badly at all.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is who the media wants to win.   What's the matter with Kansas thinks that's messes up.

 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-rally-arrest-taser-media-68fe78b79ae65556c4efc850e142998c

Police use Taser to subdue man who stormed media area of Trump rally in Pennsylvania

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A man at Donald Trump’s rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, stormed into the press area as the former president spoke Friday but was surrounded by police and sheriff’s deputies and was eventually subdued with a Taser.

The altercation came moments after Trump criticized major media outlets for what he said was unfavorable coverage and dismissed CNN as fawning for its interview Thursday with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are like 80 things that are jacked up about those tweets but the best one is that she didn't "sidestep" it or "evade" it.  

She addressed it by calling it the same tired old playbook.   That's pretty directly addressing it.   

Did poLOLico even watch the interview they're reporting on?   

Also why does anyone need anyone to report on an interview anyone can just watch?  

Edited by pfife
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

Also why does anyone need anyone to report on an interview anyone can just watch?  

That is the key isn't it?

But, "I watched it so you don't have to" is SOP for biased sources who want to color reality and given a lazy audience it works for them.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

They want Trump to win.

They want ratings and they are all down this cycle significantly from 2020 - and that's LW, RW and MSM.

One interpretation that the people have tuned out of politics this cycle, but that doesn't really wash with volunteer and fund raising strength. So hopefully it just means people are learning not to care what the talking heads say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN bungled the whole thing anyway with all the extraneous production time - and the fact that they ran so many commercials. The actual interview was so chopped up and had such long breaks that it was pretty much guaranteed to keep anyone from getting much of a focus on Harris - which was probably fine by Harris but just highlights CNN's incompetence as a new org. CNN was more interested in marketing themselves in that hour than actually doing the 'news' thing, which would have been to run at least a 1/2 hour interview uninterrupted. But that's the corporate reality.

But to a degree it's always been this way. The very best interviews before the 1960 election weren't done by Cronkite or Murrow or Huntley/Brinkley, they were done by Jack Paar on the Tonight show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Project 2025 in a nutshell.  The woman employee of ANC will now be one of the first to hang or be thrown out a window or to accidentally eat polonium or whatever methods that Mike Flynn or Erik Prince learned from the FSB controllers.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is failing to properly explain the issue.

TWO incidents took place.

1. A female ANC employee was assulted by a member of the Trump campaign.

2. The Trump campaign illegally held a campaign event in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetary.

Just because the woman involved in Incident # 1 failed to press charges - that does't negate Incident # 2.

I do not know who would enforce/procescute Incedent # 2 but someone should.

I agree with article that an Investigation / Oversight Committee should be formed to look into the issue. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, pfife said:

There are like 80 things that are jacked up about those tweets but the best one is that she didn't "sidestep" it or "evade" it.  

She addressed it by calling it the same tired old playbook.   That's pretty directly addressing it.   

Did poLOLico even watch the interview they're reporting on?   

Also why does anyone need anyone to report on an interview anyone can just watch?  

What happened to the unity ticket?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

CNN bungled the whole thing anyway with all the extraneous production time - and the fact that they ran so many commercials. The actual interview was so chopped up and had such long breaks that it was pretty much guaranteed to keep anyone from getting much of a focus on Harris - which was probably fine by Harris but just highlights CNN's incompetence as a new org. CNN was more interested in marketing themselves in that hour than actually doing the 'news' thing, which would have been to run at least a 1/2 hour interview uninterrupted. But that's the corporate reality.

But to a degree it's always been this way. The very best interviews before the 1960 election weren't done by Cronkite or Murrow or Huntley/Brinkley, they were done by Jack Paar on the Tonight show.

Hell today, John Stewart does some of the most hard hitting interviews on TV or the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Hell today, John Stewart does some of the most hard hitting interviews on TV or the internet.

because even though Stewart has gotten to be a bit of a head case himself now, he is at least interested who he is interviewing and what they are saying. For the typical Cable or Network news interviewer, that's way down the list below 

  • their career ambitions
  • their own political agenda
  • the agenda for the show rating
  • the agenda in the memo from the corporate brass
  • the hope to be able to put a 'gotcha' moment on their resume.

You have to have a foundational interest in your subject  - view the interview as more than just a means to your own ends, for any interview to ever get off the ground and that's completely missing in just about all of today's talking heads. Until the interviewee senses the interviewer seriously wants to know and understand and begins to respond to that, it just stays adversarial and guarded and all you will get are talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...