I think you did a great job when you interviewed Trump a while back. The criticism about platforming is about whether the manner in which they are interviewed involves any active fact-checking or clarification for the audience - whether that is push-back in the moment or an editorial insert. It is well-known by this point that they are willfully seeding mis- & dis-information to either muddy the waters or worse, foment discord and the breaking of societal norms. Therefore, we need a model of reporting that adapts to that reality when dealing with any politically powerful agent, but especially those who have shown this disregard for facts and truth to sow division and pursue power.
Thank you! I agree with this principle in general. It’s best to surround any voice in a story with other voices, writing and context; and also good to return to a story again and again, so the audience has the background to evaluate what they are being told. Experience tells me that for some people, unfortunately, that is never enough. They will demand the general treatment that you rightly describe above, but will not admit when specific stories provide that treatment, because their real objection is that we cover the person at all.
Barr, a well-documented unprincipled liar, actively supported investigations based on unfounded conspiracy theories using Special Prosecutor Durham. What rational principle of journalism requires he be given time on a mass media public forum to justify his behavior as Attorney General? What is the difference between allowing him to broadcast his version of alternate reality and having RFK Jr. on to talk about how the Covid-19 virus was engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people? Interviewing Barr without confronting his behavior while he was the former guy's AG is journalistic malpractice. It does nothing to inform the public on the factual record of his time in office, which was highlighted in a VOX article that pointed out that; "Basically, Durham and Barr wanted to prove that the Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically. Again and again, Durham pursued various versions of this theory, and again and again, he fell short of proving his case."
I’m bewildered by Barr’s “never Biden” stance. Even if I believed the worst nonsense from the right wing echo chamber “news”, he’s still had a more than competent administration with precious few scandals. I don’t dread flipping on the news, nor am I afraid to read the latest bat**** insane thing he tweeted out just to get clicks and attention.
Prior to Trump, I reliably voted for every GOP candidate, but given another Biden vs. Trump election, I’d gleefully stab the Biden button.
I don't necessarily object to journalists speaking with Barr, but I think he should be confronted in every interview with his sycophancy so that the listener is aware of his priors. The notion that Biden is worse for this county than most of the Republican field is ludicrous. These people shilling for the right should have their hypocrisy illuminated.
I think you did a great job when you interviewed Trump a while back. The criticism about platforming is about whether the manner in which they are interviewed involves any active fact-checking or clarification for the audience - whether that is push-back in the moment or an editorial insert. It is well-known by this point that they are willfully seeding mis- & dis-information to either muddy the waters or worse, foment discord and the breaking of societal norms. Therefore, we need a model of reporting that adapts to that reality when dealing with any politically powerful agent, but especially those who have shown this disregard for facts and truth to sow division and pursue power.
Thank you! I agree with this principle in general. It’s best to surround any voice in a story with other voices, writing and context; and also good to return to a story again and again, so the audience has the background to evaluate what they are being told. Experience tells me that for some people, unfortunately, that is never enough. They will demand the general treatment that you rightly describe above, but will not admit when specific stories provide that treatment, because their real objection is that we cover the person at all.
Barr, a well-documented unprincipled liar, actively supported investigations based on unfounded conspiracy theories using Special Prosecutor Durham. What rational principle of journalism requires he be given time on a mass media public forum to justify his behavior as Attorney General? What is the difference between allowing him to broadcast his version of alternate reality and having RFK Jr. on to talk about how the Covid-19 virus was engineered to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people? Interviewing Barr without confronting his behavior while he was the former guy's AG is journalistic malpractice. It does nothing to inform the public on the factual record of his time in office, which was highlighted in a VOX article that pointed out that; "Basically, Durham and Barr wanted to prove that the Trump-Russia investigation was manufactured in bad faith by either “deep state” officials or the Clinton campaign (or both), with the goal of hurting Trump politically. Again and again, Durham pursued various versions of this theory, and again and again, he fell short of proving his case."
Here's a link to a reasonable account of Barr's behavior in that regard: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/27/23573026/durham-barr-new-york-times-trump-investigation, that is an example of journalism informing the public, without clouding the historical record with unfounded fairytales about reasonable motives by someone who is a glaring example of dishonorable, deceitful, unethical behavior.
Amen.
I’m bewildered by Barr’s “never Biden” stance. Even if I believed the worst nonsense from the right wing echo chamber “news”, he’s still had a more than competent administration with precious few scandals. I don’t dread flipping on the news, nor am I afraid to read the latest bat**** insane thing he tweeted out just to get clicks and attention.
Prior to Trump, I reliably voted for every GOP candidate, but given another Biden vs. Trump election, I’d gleefully stab the Biden button.
I don't necessarily object to journalists speaking with Barr, but I think he should be confronted in every interview with his sycophancy so that the listener is aware of his priors. The notion that Biden is worse for this county than most of the Republican field is ludicrous. These people shilling for the right should have their hypocrisy illuminated.