The ideas flung around as to how to deal with the Alt-Truth world of the Trump Administration continue their flinging. I perhaps betray my age, my liberal arts education, and my love of rhetoric and debate, but keep feeling like we should engage the hell out of these folk, debunk them, and let the electorate be informed and then decide accordingly. Because if that can't happen, we're doomed anyway.
But I have to say, there's some merit to the argument presented here: if Kellyanne Conway is not a reliable or insightful spokesperson for Trump (because Trump feels not obligation not to contradict her or do or say something different from what she says he's going to do or say, and because her rhetoric veers in and out of the incoherent), then why bother interviewing her? Because she's the Official Person to be Interviewed? That hardly seems like a good reason.
Journalists should stop interviewing Kellyanne Conway
Journalists should stop interviewing Kellyanne Conway
I'll admit that many of the people who are interviewed engage in "spin." When a news network asks someone in the Bush Administration how Bush performed in a certain speech, you can predict with 99.9% accuracy that the spokesperson will say that Bush gave an excellent speech. And if he was running against Kerry at the time, a Kerry spokesperson will say that Bush gave a terrible speech.
But at least a spinning object has some proximity to the truth. Contradictory statements within days of each other is a whole new level.
I'd have to honestly review some of Clinton's statements to see if her statements went over the "spin" line and into the "alternative facts" arena.
But hey, it provides for entertaining TV – something I've…um…deplored since Crossfire first appeared – the show that decided that every issue could be boiled down to two sides: the left, and the right. Crossfire is gone, but its simplistic legacy remains. And if you run a network and want to get viewers, you have to get two people fighting against each other (which, truth to tell, is more exciting than one person shadow boxing an unseen foe).
+John E. Bredehoft Especially when the unseen foe is a straw man.
But, sure, I would expect Trump's flacks to offer their opinion that it was (for example) a great speech, that the senators they've talked to said it was a great speech, and that they are sure it will resonate with an American pubic that yadda-yadda-yadda. I'd expect Clinton flacks, Bush flacks, any flacks to do so. That's their job, like any advertising company.
Arguing against more objective things — Trump never said X, most Americans believe Y, there has never been a bigger / smaller thing than something else … anything that can actually be fact-checked — is something different. As is "Well, of course we are at war with EastAsia," despite having been at war with EurAsia last week. And while (as has been noted) this is not completely new, Trump's team seems to be doubling down and not even admitting that there's a game going on.
It doesn’t matter. Trump is gas lighting his constituents. It starts with telling them “MSM” can’t be trusted, communicate directly via Twitter. They then ignore the established press. Boycotting just proves hook right, challenges are seen as liberal whining.
We are seeing lot with Brexit. Our supreme court has said withdrawal needs to go through parliament, that the PM can’t enact alone. This let’s the Right wing paint them as trying to frustrate the will of the people. It doesn’t matter what the law says, you just tell them any opposition is “the elites”.
@LH – There is certainly that. The question is, does he realize he’s doing it, does he do it just for self-aggrandizing power, or does he do it for a more sinister purpose.