How are we going to shame the national media into covering Trump correctly? What price will NBC pay for this farce? Why do they continue to put out under prepared young women, instead of older and more experienced interviewers like Jonathan Swan and Mehdi Hassan? What about her teams dinner with Trump advisors a few weeks ago? Does NBC care so little about democracy or its citizens? This is all deeply disturbing after the farce of the CNN town Hall.
I've said it before: we don't have a free press in this country, we have a very expensive press, and it reflects the views and interests of its owners. There's nothing unique about Fox, nor about Elon Musk; they're on the extremes but within the fold. Nor is there any substantial independent alternative like the Guardian in England.
Jefferson once said that "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them."
I agree. Partially. But Cable TV is a small and shrinking source of news for Americans. Cable news is largely watched by boomers. And it's viewer base is shrinking every month. As so goes the advertisers. I predict at least one of the major cable TV networks will shut down in the near future. There is no future for them when their audience is dying off. The strike might be the final nail in the coffin. RIP NBC - hopefully.
If one does what younger people do, which is to gather news through aggregate sources on their phones, there are many ways to harvest information. And there is substack which is growing explosively. I drank my optimistic coffee blend this morning :)
The one sure way for the media to contain Donald Trump’s lies and ambitions is to STOP REPEATING THEM. Ah, but then there’s profit to be made in clickbait and viewership. Welcome to capitalism, a wonderful incentive for innovation and productivity, until greed overwhelms justice. Trump has his own media outlets, why is every pundit and producer in this country so invested in giving him airtime and print?
Thanks! I am using this line tonight (credited to you: The one sure way for the media to contain Donald Trump’s lies and ambitions is to STOP REPEATING THEM. )
Your sage commentary is always incisive. With respect to today’s article on trump’s interview, it should be noted that the realities of news department management generally involve pre-interview meetings with lawyers and press representatives of prominent guests to review and agree upon the scope of the interview. This constrains many if not most news interviewers from challenging their guests false statements. I thought you ought to know.
Hi, Linda. Thanks for highlighting that point. If it is true that there were pre-meetings that resulted in agreements about how the interview would be conducted, that is something the public should know about.
I suspect that the first two softball questions were agreed upon. Why would Kristen Welker agree to such conditions? (In fairness, i assume every other journalist at MSNBC and CNN would have done the same.)
But, taking your statement as true, that makes MSNBC's decision to give Trump a platform worse, not better. It is treating him as a legitimate candidate for office. He is not. He is running as part of a defense to criminal charges for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and refusing to return defense secrets. He does not deserve to be treated as a legitimate candidate.
Absolutely right, Robert !!!!!!! The indicted felon should not be given a platform on the public airwaves to spout his lies. The news media are using the public airwaves to promote spectacle. They do not care about the good of the country.
Nearly 30 years in Communications, this isn't news, it's fiction and public relations. They did the same thing when HRC was running. We don't have a free and fair media anymore.
Agreed! However, in those situations (which are more often than you might imagine), the news medium should announce the the proposed interviewee refused to be interviewed openly. We cannot allow for candidates to get free time to spout lies (and yes, the news media, as a private entity, can make a determination as to what are lies) and not be challenged if we wish to have an informed electorate.
I agree that the interviews are set with pre-conditions, and we know that the Defendant will always stack the deck in his favor and seek to control the narrative. We can depend on him, though to make unbridled, ill-advised, self-incriminating statements in his attempts to intimidate potential witnesses or pee in the jury pool. Let's hope that the judges are wise to his methods and are able to head off everything but the self-incrimination. The jury is still out though.
I understand that President Biden was offered an equal opportunity. I think he'd do well to stay away from that type of forum. The "gotcha" questions he'd be asked would not be helpful, and his honesty in answering others would not be given the respect it deserves. I'd prefer to see him do a "fireside chat" routinely, perhaps monthly, to talk about real challenges and real solutions, and set the tone for his own narrative. He'd have to be careful to keep it presidential though, and not make it a political campaign.
I LOVE that idea. Brings me back to FDR, though I was born in 1945 and so I wasn't able to hear them. I love the format for Biden! More relaxing. I also love the idea of monthly chats. I'd watch them.
But he's in a political campaign. Would it be wrong for him to say what his plans are for the next 4 years? I don't think so.
I think he'd have to be careful so that he's not criticized for using such a format as a campaign forum. I don't know that he'd be able to avoid it, but I think it might be consideration.
I've worked in Communications for almost 30 years. Then you know what we wouldn't do as a result? HAVE HIM ON THE BROADCAST IN THE FIRST PLACE. That's not news, that's public relations.
So, Bill, it seems that us boomers gotta figger out how to reach the younger voters on their turf. For those of us who are digitally deficient, that's a real challenge. Does anyone know if the younger folks are reading Substack? Maybe that's how we can connect.
Kathleen is right, I think. Podcasts are a current vehicle for so many people. But they have very specific audiences. Just like substack.
Sometimes I reflect on the probable average age here and on LFAA. Most of us are grandparents.
The social media that reaches the most people under 50 is Tik Tok and Instagram I think. Not a lot of reading.
If I were guiding the Democrats in ad spending, I would hire some 18 to 24 year old clever creators to post a blizzard of satirical yet truthful stuff on TikTok. Hammer away at the key subjects of Climate Crisis, womens reproductive rights and the child care emergency. Give them 50% of the budget. TikTok material crosses over to Facebook and other social media when it catches a wave.
I agree. I hope they've got a team of advisors that includes some young folks. I think Obama courted the younger voters; maybe the Biden campaign has some experience too.
A little out of reach for me. I've got a few good slogans, and wrote a pretty good letter to HS seniors, but I'm not up on TikTok. My young adult children are in their late 30s, and their kids are still in early childhood. I'm hoping I can find a way to get through, though.
My daughter, who is not a youngster, listens to podcasts. They seem very popular with people her age. She is very informed, but I worry that's not enough, or that the focus is being clever or funny. I'm not a podcast person myself, so I don't actually know.
I would like to made an addendum to my comment: to be reasonable, there may be times when the Republican nominee needs to be referenced. I ask that he be properly referred to as ‘the ex-President’ rather than his name.
I greatly appreciate your comment above, Loretta. As for calling he who shall go unnamed, 'Mr. President,' as in the quoted second interview question, that is completely unnerving. I realize this could be tradition though he deserves NOT such reverence. What was Welker thinking? (Perhaps this is part of your point here.)
The media uses women to interview the criminal defendant Trump because it is highly doubtful he would consent to an interview with an experienced hardcore male journalist. Trump is clearly confident that he can intimidate, gaslight or otherwise overwhelm a female interviewer.
The comment about male vs. female journalists is slightly offensive. There are plenty of hard-hitting female journalists who could be well prepared. Any journalist with some legal training and experience in cross-examination would never have let him make the statements he made go unchecked. As but one example, Kristen Welker never hit back when trump said THREE TIMES that Dems support abortion after birth. That is nonsensical. There was no real time fact checking. And I’d love to know what the ground rules were for this interview.
I object to your statement in one point: the comment about male vs female commentators was not “slightly offensive”. It was full-on offensive. Had the post compared hard-hitting interviewers vs softball- interviewers, it would have been a fair comment.
Although, producers and the network’s agreements with its interviewees sometimes hinder the interviewer. Let’s just say the interview was weak tea as to the truth, that Mr. Trump got millions of dollars of free advertising, and Ms Welker failed to crack the subject.
It’s the youth and inexperience of women like Caitlin Collins, and Kristen Welker, that I object to not their gender. Until Rachel Maddow, female journalists have been hired for their appearance, and their willingness to flatter men. That’s life under patriarchy.
“ Let’s just say the interview was weak tea as to the truth, that Mr. Trump got millions of dollars of free advertising, and Ms Welker failed to crack the subject.” :
Ah, but NBC got eyeballs! A win-win for NBC and Trump?
I get the “civility” (and appreciate it). But we can be civil and straight-tongued at the same time. As Joyce Vance ends her daily Substack commentary “we’re all in this together”. ✌🏻
Gee thanks, but you didn't need to "temper' your comment--I knew when I hit post that I hadn't really expressed what I meant. I wrote another comment that expresses my thinking on this more clearly.
Please read my comment in reply. I knew when wrote it that I was expressing my thoughts about trump interviewers very poorly. It's at the bottom of the comment thread. More or less.
Marilyn, i agree with the position that Trump would not agree to be interviewed by a male journalist. This is coming from a hardcore female journalist who recognizes reality. The bottom line , though, is Robert's key point that NBC -- regardless of interviewer who was woefully unprepared to manhandle Trump's fully anticipated lies -- committed journalistic malpractice. They platformed a known anarchist who is power hungry. They legitimized and normalized Trump's fatal fascism. They treated him like an honorable candidate for the presidency. That is what we all need to focus on, together. Call NBC, CBS and CNN today and every day for the next month to complain. They might hear us snd start to get a glimmer of their complicity in the destruction of our democracy.
I'm so sorry that anyone felt offended by my comment about male versus female journalists. I knew I hadn't phrased my thinking clearly.
What I was getting at was not that are no hard-hitting female journalists--the point that I was trying to make was that Trump is an insecure misogynistic gaslighter and he will readily agree to an interview with a younger female--or male--journalist because if by some chance they did try to pin him with some hard questions, or insist the he is falsifying his story, Trump would find it very much easier to bully or stonewall a younger less experienced journalist--as he did with Kristin Welker. I suspect he might be more readily intimidated by a man as opposed to a woman--even a very experienced, prepared-to-take-no-prisoners female journalist. This is about Trump's psychological issues; it's not about male vs female journalists.
Of course there are VERY experienced, prepared journalists--both women and men...but notice that Trump avoids interviews with people whom perceives as hard-hitting, prepared to dispute his BS and utterly focused.
Ground rules mean nothing to trump! He owns them all because they still think he would 'honor' any agreement. They have no idea how to handle him. They aren't Mehdi Hasan who does.
I saw clips on Jen Psaki's show. She did hit back - three times, but he kept lying. Disinformation! Plus wasn't he pro-abortion until he became a Republican?
Poor Donny took his jacks and stomped out of an interview with mean Leslie Stahl in 2020 because she wasn’t playing fair by asking too many relevant, hard hitting questions.
People like Judy Woodruff, and Andrea Mitchell got where they are by being deferential to men and they continue to do so. Annette gives some great suggestions, but only one of them is a journalist.
Kristin Welker was a dreadful disappointment. Elevated to her own Cable news, praised by Andrea Mitchell, shouldn’t she be removed for that disgraceful interview.
Horrifying.
The media keeps on giving air time for ratings, not true Journalism.
Yes!!! See my comment above. And this is coming from a female journalist who is sick about how Trump abuses women reporters. He counts on female civility to twist them into knots. Just ask Kaitlin Collins of CNN. Welker was just more of the same. Trump would NEVER have agreed to be interviewed by Chuck Todd.
Ellie, Thank you for the link. I was unaware of any organization that seemingly aims to bridge the chasm between those in the business and those who depend on media as their window to the world.
CBS has its fingers in deception as well. Remember Leslie Stahl’s pathetic interview of MTG on 60 minutes? It was hyped for days and only to be a giggly admiration segment of all the amazing things MTG does in her life. And they hired Mick Mulvaney to spout his garbage in the mornings. I trust NO News outlets. I read, I listen, and then I wait for The Todays Edition to help me unpack the misinformation cesspool.
How can you shame an entity that operates without a conscience, or any other guidance other than whatever will rake in the most profit via advertising revenue?
Young women interviewers, indeed. The only reason Trump agreed to the interview; he knew he could wool them around (and he did). Now we have 3 major networks -- CBS (Stahl/Greene interview), CNN (Collins/Trump debacle 1), and NBC (Welker/Trump debacle 2) -- normalizing a fascist party and its wanna-be dictator. We all need to contact CNN, CBS and NBC to complain and explain the terrrible danger they are fomenting. Without our voice, their viewers, they will NEVER change their methods.
Well, whatever you thought about the interview, Kristen Welker is actually an experienced reporter on the national scene, and not some wet-behind-the-ears rookie.
I am one of the many who are sick and tired of American politics. Too sick to watch most news sources. Not surprised by NBC, CNN and sometimes even find NYT full of fluff. That said I read Hubbell essentially every day. I am grateful for the updates and especially the optimism and stories of many who inspire me to be more active. I live part of the year abroad and as bad as MAGA extremism and guns are in the US, I continue to appreciate how the US is a true country of possibility almost like no other. And yet, we must all work to protect it. Sadly, as Robert notes, again, Citizens United and the Supreme Court and the (new?)GOP have tortured our system. Kudos to those who continue to fight. Thank you. May your inspiration inspire countless others, like me, to greater activism.
I am sick about Texas. The failure to convict the AG is a kick in the gut.
I was born and raised in central Texas and still have family and friends there. I don’t go back often as I refuse to spend any money there that would generate tax revenue for the state.
The government has gone off the rails, drank the Kool-aid, crawled through the worm hole and landed in some alternate universe where up is down and batshit crazy seems to be the norm.
I know that there are good people in Texas, like in Florida, who are fighting an exhausting uphill battle for representation. God bless them. May 2024 be a turning point.
Robert, your last comment in the leading section, "Let’s hope that the grownups in the room take charge—soon" underscores the GOP's problem. There ARE no grownups in the room.
There are, theoretically, 211 adults in the room Bob. Outside the House they're called Democrats, but they seem to have gone missing. Mr. Jeffries and company should be doing much more than watch the GOP make greater fools of themselves than they already are. The strategy has been discussed to death, it is time for action and there is no good reason to procrastinate.
Hi Dave, I left out the sentence that preceded it: "In short, no one is in charge of the GOP caucus at this moment." The "room" therefore seemed to refer to the GOP caucus.
I'm not sure what the Dems can do to change things as long as McCarthy is acting as SOTH. What is the strategy of which you speak?
It's a variation of Jerry Weiss's suggestion that a 'moderate' Republican like Don Bacon enter a motion to vacate and, with the support of some Democrats, remove McCarthy, replace him with the instigator and, working across aisles, get the House back to regular order. Another approach, and one more in keeping with legislative political norms, would be for Jeffries and his crew to seek out enough Republicans who are tired of the B.S. to make up a majority, enter the Senate version of the appropriations bills and push them through. It's all based on the fact that the Freekdumb Caucus is louder than their numbers warrant, and they've got McCarthy by a very tender spot so he won't do anything other than buckle under. The theory behind Jeffries replacing Pelosi was that she'd be there to coach him along and that he had enough smarts of his own to grow into the job. So far, that theory hasn't been born out in practice that I can see.
I see. I've often wondered if it would be beneficial for a Democrat to enter such a motion. They'd have to have a palatable Republican in mind as a successor though, and I'm not sure such a creature exists anymore. I'm not ready to give up on Jeffries, although I do wish he'd be more visible. Being Pelosi's understudy would likely look a lot different if the Dems were still in the majority, but as the Minority Leader, it's a lot different. Here's an idea: let's make him Speaker of the House in 2024!
I'm not familiar enough with that particular rule to know if a Democrat could move to vacate or if that would have to come from a Republican. In Robert's Rules, any member can enter a motion, but Congressional parliamentary procedure is, at best, a perversion of the idea of Order.
There's no doubt Jeffries would have an easier time as Majority Leader or Speaker, but he went into the job knowing what his status was likely to be. From here, it looks like he's got the freedom to try pretty much anything and blame any adverse consequences on McCarthy. He and, by extension, the President, would benefit from a more active (pro-active?) approach instead of the reactive commentary we've seen so far. There are some eloquent speakers in the Democratic caucus but all we've heard from them is how silly the GOP is and how meaningless their investigations have been so far. That might be good for the next election campaign, but it's not getting anything done right now.
I have high hopes that he will be Speaker 16 months hence but we've got to get through those 16 months first. And, of course, re-elect Mr. Biden.
I'm fairly certain that the motion to vacate can come from any member, but it could be fraught with danger if a Dem does it. I agree that we have to get thru the next 16 months first, but as long as the Republicans are in the majority in the House, I don't foresee anything but chaos reigning and smoke coming from the chamber. It's clear that the R's strategy is to make it appear that President Biden's government is ineffective by sabotaging everything they can. As you suggest, the D's need a strategy, and it should be one of offense instead of defense. The R's idea of "offense" is being offensive.
I think there are adults. But where are they? Why aren't they speaking out when it comes to this government shutdown? Am I naive? Okay, I've answered my own question!
I totally agree. Let's do it! Boycott NBC and while we're at it, CNN too. I rarely listen to the msm but I know many who do.Punch 'em in the mouth with poor ratings.
I watch CNN after the PBS News (often disappointing). I find Erin McNeil’s news to be enlightening, with good, well-informed “guests” (even most of the Republicans). Her interviews about Ukraine with retired generals bring in a level of expertise that NYT and WaPo articles seem to lack.
We have Dish and they are currently in a fight with NBC, so it is off the air for us. It is good practice for me to stop watching their news programs. However, I stopped watching ABC News years ago, as they had become increasingly sensationalist, and Norah O'Donnell on CBS always comes across as biased to the right to me, so while we do watch a half hour of some national news, just in case we missed something, my husband and I both get most of our news from reading and for me, NPR in the car (also guilty of 'both-sidesing' many political stories. I'm grateful for Robert and a few others who distill the important stories for me.
I just wrote the following to NBC/Comcast investor relations. They need to hear from us. Feel free to cut, paste and use:
"I want you to know how disgraceful Meet The Press's interview with Trump was, in my opinion and that of many, many viewers and investors. Just providing him a platform for his continuous lies is offensive enough. That the network would provide him such a prestigious free venue to broadcast his lies and traitorous pronouncements is a sign that NBC does not take its role as a member of the free press seriously or recognize the danger in giving an enemy of our country the air space to continue to promote his venomous lies and to try to influence the election process in insidious ways. The interviewer was NOT up to the task. Journalistic "once over lightly" will not do it to protect our constitution and democratic traditions. NBC News risks complicity with these fascistic forces by airing their views as if they were in some way mainstream and not, by design, highly destructive to our system and traditions. SHAME ON YOU, NBC NEWS!"
No one is in charge of House GOP, there are no adults in the room and our country continues to suffer. I was appalled that Meet the Press did that “interview” with Trump. I did not watch. I walk out of the room whenever his face or voice is on the television. I don’t watch the evening news anymore. My husband watched NBC with Lester Holt but I will suggest my husband find a different channel for now. And I think we should all write to NBC to share our displeasure.
Thank you, Robert, for continuing these true news letters!
So when will Kristen Welker interview Joe Biden in the same way she did with Trump? And will her second question be about Hunter? If she were to ask Joe why he wants a second term, he could do a lot worse than to say, “Well, one reason is to defend the rule of law. You know, Republicans—not all of them, but the ones with power—are against the idea that the law governs, even when you don’t like the results.”
NBC's softball interview of Trump, the indicted leader of the 1/6 coup attempt, on its Meet the Press show was an incredible disgrace. It was another historic low for our country. The corporate media is a big part of why Americans are so cynical about our government.
I use to live in Philadelphia and knew Kristen Welker as a child through her mother. She is a bright and accomplished journalists. If the media is going to interview Trump then they have to ask the hard questions and not tip toe around them. You can’t hurt his feelings and you need to make him uncomfortable and you need to cut through his bullshit and lies. Unfortunately this was not accomplished in this interview and Trump got fee air time. Biden should ask for equal time. The Paxton trial and acquittal demonstrated how dark money and Trump allies can threaten and intimidate perspective jurors and this should be a warning regarding upcoming trials. The reality is the MAGA cult will try and influence and intimate anyone who wants to convict Trump secretly and out of view.
Bob Morgan suggested fireside chats, a format I think would be comfortable for Biden. Bob doesn't think it should be for campaign promotion, but I think he certainly should outline plans he has when re-elected. Especially since Trump has no plans, as is obvious by his recent interviews (which I haven't watched but have read & heard about)!
I hope Texans send Ted Cruz back to Cancun. His 2015-2016 flip from ardent anti-Trumper to slavish pro-Trumper has to be among the top head-snapping turnarounds in modern politics. And as with the Dan Patrick-Ken Paxton love-in, it's all about and facilitated by the dark money pools so handily made possible by our GOP Supreme Court.
Sep 18, 2023·edited Sep 18, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
The MAGA GOP has entered the realm of moral turpitude, "committing an acts or behaviors that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". They brazenly embrace greed, corruption, and deceit.
Dismissive and contemptuous of the American electorate, they pillage the legislative process to bully their extreme agenda down our throats. Any semblance of thoughtful leadership in advancing the common good of our country has been willfully abandoned.
Capitulation, denial, and rationalization have been the cowardly retreat of those GOP politicians and media networks attempting to stay afloat and hoping that this storm will pass. These actions only empower Trump's influence and confuse fair minded people.
The Democrats must be far more aggressive in pushing back and calling out the destructive, insurgent, and reckless behaviors and actions of the GOP. Moral turpitude must be exposed and condemned.
I hate to be defeatist --- the press will not change. It's only getting worse. As it relates to Trump and Biden, they are becoming a more polite, softer version of Fox News. As Robert always says - it's up to us to continue our efforts to get Democrats in power.
Robert, your closing comments about Texas buoyed me. I am up early, preparing for LWV registrations at college campuses and naturalization events. We’ll keep plugging. Texas readers, encourage your friends to get certified as volunteer deputy registrants--Texas is a non-voting state, largely due to the hassle of registering to begin with. We need more volunteers to turn this around!
There's no reason for the national media to "cover" Trump that serves the common good. The only right, "democratic" thing to do is to make a fashion statement: arrest the Tangerine T*** and "cover" him in an orange jump suit to compliment his hair. And there's no need to coach him on the proper facial expression for media appearances; he's already got the scowl of a rabid fox caught in a trap down pat. He should have been incarcerated weeks ago, right after Judge Chutkan warned him not to intimidate witnesses and contaminate the jury pool with his vile bullshit, but there he is, on national television no less, spewing lies and terrorizing the American people with his fascist demands.
Trump did accomplish something, however. He exposed the illegitimacy of our mainstream media for all to see, well, at least for those who "have eyes to see." Throw your televisions in the dumpster, my fellow Americans, and subscribe to Today's Edition Newsletter and wake *#F***up!
The other side of your argument is potentially independent voters saw the interview and it confirmed for them why they won’t vote for Trump. His answers were unrealistic and not believable and more importantly were not a defense against his crimes.
How are we going to shame the national media into covering Trump correctly? What price will NBC pay for this farce? Why do they continue to put out under prepared young women, instead of older and more experienced interviewers like Jonathan Swan and Mehdi Hassan? What about her teams dinner with Trump advisors a few weeks ago? Does NBC care so little about democracy or its citizens? This is all deeply disturbing after the farce of the CNN town Hall.
I've said it before: we don't have a free press in this country, we have a very expensive press, and it reflects the views and interests of its owners. There's nothing unique about Fox, nor about Elon Musk; they're on the extremes but within the fold. Nor is there any substantial independent alternative like the Guardian in England.
Jefferson once said that "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them."
I agree. Partially. But Cable TV is a small and shrinking source of news for Americans. Cable news is largely watched by boomers. And it's viewer base is shrinking every month. As so goes the advertisers. I predict at least one of the major cable TV networks will shut down in the near future. There is no future for them when their audience is dying off. The strike might be the final nail in the coffin. RIP NBC - hopefully.
If one does what younger people do, which is to gather news through aggregate sources on their phones, there are many ways to harvest information. And there is substack which is growing explosively. I drank my optimistic coffee blend this morning :)
The one sure way for the media to contain Donald Trump’s lies and ambitions is to STOP REPEATING THEM. Ah, but then there’s profit to be made in clickbait and viewership. Welcome to capitalism, a wonderful incentive for innovation and productivity, until greed overwhelms justice. Trump has his own media outlets, why is every pundit and producer in this country so invested in giving him airtime and print?
Thanks! I am using this line tonight (credited to you: The one sure way for the media to contain Donald Trump’s lies and ambitions is to STOP REPEATING THEM. )
My thoughts exactly!
Your sage commentary is always incisive. With respect to today’s article on trump’s interview, it should be noted that the realities of news department management generally involve pre-interview meetings with lawyers and press representatives of prominent guests to review and agree upon the scope of the interview. This constrains many if not most news interviewers from challenging their guests false statements. I thought you ought to know.
Hi, Linda. Thanks for highlighting that point. If it is true that there were pre-meetings that resulted in agreements about how the interview would be conducted, that is something the public should know about.
I suspect that the first two softball questions were agreed upon. Why would Kristen Welker agree to such conditions? (In fairness, i assume every other journalist at MSNBC and CNN would have done the same.)
But, taking your statement as true, that makes MSNBC's decision to give Trump a platform worse, not better. It is treating him as a legitimate candidate for office. He is not. He is running as part of a defense to criminal charges for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and refusing to return defense secrets. He does not deserve to be treated as a legitimate candidate.
Absolutely right, Robert !!!!!!! The indicted felon should not be given a platform on the public airwaves to spout his lies. The news media are using the public airwaves to promote spectacle. They do not care about the good of the country.
Exactly John! This type of “free airtime” from the networks greatly contributed to him being elected in 2016.
Nearly 30 years in Communications, this isn't news, it's fiction and public relations. They did the same thing when HRC was running. We don't have a free and fair media anymore.
Plain and simple Robert… that stain is not legitimate.
If they're constrained from challenging certain people they shouldn't interview them!
Agreed! However, in those situations (which are more often than you might imagine), the news medium should announce the the proposed interviewee refused to be interviewed openly. We cannot allow for candidates to get free time to spout lies (and yes, the news media, as a private entity, can make a determination as to what are lies) and not be challenged if we wish to have an informed electorate.
Great points!
I agree that the interviews are set with pre-conditions, and we know that the Defendant will always stack the deck in his favor and seek to control the narrative. We can depend on him, though to make unbridled, ill-advised, self-incriminating statements in his attempts to intimidate potential witnesses or pee in the jury pool. Let's hope that the judges are wise to his methods and are able to head off everything but the self-incrimination. The jury is still out though.
I understand that President Biden was offered an equal opportunity. I think he'd do well to stay away from that type of forum. The "gotcha" questions he'd be asked would not be helpful, and his honesty in answering others would not be given the respect it deserves. I'd prefer to see him do a "fireside chat" routinely, perhaps monthly, to talk about real challenges and real solutions, and set the tone for his own narrative. He'd have to be careful to keep it presidential though, and not make it a political campaign.
Yes. Agreed. I do so love that when asked what he thought of trump’s mug shot, Biden fired back “Handsome fella”!!! Hahahahahaha love it! Love Biden
I LOVE that idea. Brings me back to FDR, though I was born in 1945 and so I wasn't able to hear them. I love the format for Biden! More relaxing. I also love the idea of monthly chats. I'd watch them.
But he's in a political campaign. Would it be wrong for him to say what his plans are for the next 4 years? I don't think so.
I think he'd have to be careful so that he's not criticized for using such a format as a campaign forum. I don't know that he'd be able to avoid it, but I think it might be consideration.
Good info and perspective. Thanks!
It is still maddening! I see a parallel between the
immoral House of Representatives and the mainstream media. No consciences; only power and money matter.
I've worked in Communications for almost 30 years. Then you know what we wouldn't do as a result? HAVE HIM ON THE BROADCAST IN THE FIRST PLACE. That's not news, that's public relations.
So, Bill, it seems that us boomers gotta figger out how to reach the younger voters on their turf. For those of us who are digitally deficient, that's a real challenge. Does anyone know if the younger folks are reading Substack? Maybe that's how we can connect.
Kathleen is right, I think. Podcasts are a current vehicle for so many people. But they have very specific audiences. Just like substack.
Sometimes I reflect on the probable average age here and on LFAA. Most of us are grandparents.
The social media that reaches the most people under 50 is Tik Tok and Instagram I think. Not a lot of reading.
If I were guiding the Democrats in ad spending, I would hire some 18 to 24 year old clever creators to post a blizzard of satirical yet truthful stuff on TikTok. Hammer away at the key subjects of Climate Crisis, womens reproductive rights and the child care emergency. Give them 50% of the budget. TikTok material crosses over to Facebook and other social media when it catches a wave.
I agree. I hope they've got a team of advisors that includes some young folks. I think Obama courted the younger voters; maybe the Biden campaign has some experience too.
I am being a little facetious, but only a little; put something on TikToc. A jingle or a young person persueding other young adults to vote.
A little out of reach for me. I've got a few good slogans, and wrote a pretty good letter to HS seniors, but I'm not up on TikTok. My young adult children are in their late 30s, and their kids are still in early childhood. I'm hoping I can find a way to get through, though.
My daughter, who is not a youngster, listens to podcasts. They seem very popular with people her age. She is very informed, but I worry that's not enough, or that the focus is being clever or funny. I'm not a podcast person myself, so I don't actually know.
I would like to made an addendum to my comment: to be reasonable, there may be times when the Republican nominee needs to be referenced. I ask that he be properly referred to as ‘the ex-President’ rather than his name.
Or perhaps refer to him as "the pretender to the throne"? ;-)
I greatly appreciate your comment above, Loretta. As for calling he who shall go unnamed, 'Mr. President,' as in the quoted second interview question, that is completely unnerving. I realize this could be tradition though he deserves NOT such reverence. What was Welker thinking? (Perhaps this is part of your point here.)
We can hope.
Well said. What I would have said but you did it better.
Like CNN, NBC is dead to me.
Add CBS to your dead list (Stahl, Greene 60 Minutes softball)
Forgot about that.
I have long ago stopped watching both 60 Minutes and Meet the Press which were both standard for me long ago, in a galaxy far far away.
The media uses women to interview the criminal defendant Trump because it is highly doubtful he would consent to an interview with an experienced hardcore male journalist. Trump is clearly confident that he can intimidate, gaslight or otherwise overwhelm a female interviewer.
The comment about male vs. female journalists is slightly offensive. There are plenty of hard-hitting female journalists who could be well prepared. Any journalist with some legal training and experience in cross-examination would never have let him make the statements he made go unchecked. As but one example, Kristen Welker never hit back when trump said THREE TIMES that Dems support abortion after birth. That is nonsensical. There was no real time fact checking. And I’d love to know what the ground rules were for this interview.
Some suggestions: Rachel Maddow, Dahlia Lithwick, Jill Wine Banks....three that come to mind easily.
And Christiane Amanpour.
He would never agree to meet with them. Not in a million years.
I object to your statement in one point: the comment about male vs female commentators was not “slightly offensive”. It was full-on offensive. Had the post compared hard-hitting interviewers vs softball- interviewers, it would have been a fair comment.
Although, producers and the network’s agreements with its interviewees sometimes hinder the interviewer. Let’s just say the interview was weak tea as to the truth, that Mr. Trump got millions of dollars of free advertising, and Ms Welker failed to crack the subject.
It’s the youth and inexperience of women like Caitlin Collins, and Kristen Welker, that I object to not their gender. Until Rachel Maddow, female journalists have been hired for their appearance, and their willingness to flatter men. That’s life under patriarchy.
Agree!!
“ Let’s just say the interview was weak tea as to the truth, that Mr. Trump got millions of dollars of free advertising, and Ms Welker failed to crack the subject.” :
Ah, but NBC got eyeballs! A win-win for NBC and Trump?
I agree with you. I only included the word “slightly” because I was trying to temper my comment.
I get the “civility” (and appreciate it). But we can be civil and straight-tongued at the same time. As Joyce Vance ends her daily Substack commentary “we’re all in this together”. ✌🏻
Gee thanks, but you didn't need to "temper' your comment--I knew when I hit post that I hadn't really expressed what I meant. I wrote another comment that expresses my thinking on this more clearly.
Please read my comment in reply. I knew when wrote it that I was expressing my thoughts about trump interviewers very poorly. It's at the bottom of the comment thread. More or less.
Marilyn, i agree with the position that Trump would not agree to be interviewed by a male journalist. This is coming from a hardcore female journalist who recognizes reality. The bottom line , though, is Robert's key point that NBC -- regardless of interviewer who was woefully unprepared to manhandle Trump's fully anticipated lies -- committed journalistic malpractice. They platformed a known anarchist who is power hungry. They legitimized and normalized Trump's fatal fascism. They treated him like an honorable candidate for the presidency. That is what we all need to focus on, together. Call NBC, CBS and CNN today and every day for the next month to complain. They might hear us snd start to get a glimmer of their complicity in the destruction of our democracy.
Thank you
I'm so sorry that anyone felt offended by my comment about male versus female journalists. I knew I hadn't phrased my thinking clearly.
What I was getting at was not that are no hard-hitting female journalists--the point that I was trying to make was that Trump is an insecure misogynistic gaslighter and he will readily agree to an interview with a younger female--or male--journalist because if by some chance they did try to pin him with some hard questions, or insist the he is falsifying his story, Trump would find it very much easier to bully or stonewall a younger less experienced journalist--as he did with Kristin Welker. I suspect he might be more readily intimidated by a man as opposed to a woman--even a very experienced, prepared-to-take-no-prisoners female journalist. This is about Trump's psychological issues; it's not about male vs female journalists.
Of course there are VERY experienced, prepared journalists--both women and men...but notice that Trump avoids interviews with people whom perceives as hard-hitting, prepared to dispute his BS and utterly focused.
Ground rules mean nothing to trump! He owns them all because they still think he would 'honor' any agreement. They have no idea how to handle him. They aren't Mehdi Hasan who does.
I saw clips on Jen Psaki's show. She did hit back - three times, but he kept lying. Disinformation! Plus wasn't he pro-abortion until he became a Republican?
Poor Donny took his jacks and stomped out of an interview with mean Leslie Stahl in 2020 because she wasn’t playing fair by asking too many relevant, hard hitting questions.
He's telling you what heir cheetolini agreed to based on his well known biases. No way he was agreeing to speak with a "lib woman."
People like Judy Woodruff, and Andrea Mitchell got where they are by being deferential to men and they continue to do so. Annette gives some great suggestions, but only one of them is a journalist.
Kristin Welker was a dreadful disappointment. Elevated to her own Cable news, praised by Andrea Mitchell, shouldn’t she be removed for that disgraceful interview.
Horrifying.
The media keeps on giving air time for ratings, not true Journalism.
Yes!!! See my comment above. And this is coming from a female journalist who is sick about how Trump abuses women reporters. He counts on female civility to twist them into knots. Just ask Kaitlin Collins of CNN. Welker was just more of the same. Trump would NEVER have agreed to be interviewed by Chuck Todd.
He can and he did.
The good folks at the Media and Democracy Project (MAD) meet every other week to address effective actions:
https://www.mediaanddemocracyproject.org/
Thanks, Ellie!
How is that working?
Like any grassroots organization, it is as good as its membership, so check it out.
That's what happens when you're on the West Coast...you beat me to it! Was going to suggest the Media and Democracy project!!!!!
Ellie, Thank you for the link. I was unaware of any organization that seemingly aims to bridge the chasm between those in the business and those who depend on media as their window to the world.
CBS has its fingers in deception as well. Remember Leslie Stahl’s pathetic interview of MTG on 60 minutes? It was hyped for days and only to be a giggly admiration segment of all the amazing things MTG does in her life. And they hired Mick Mulvaney to spout his garbage in the mornings. I trust NO News outlets. I read, I listen, and then I wait for The Todays Edition to help me unpack the misinformation cesspool.
How can you shame an entity that operates without a conscience, or any other guidance other than whatever will rake in the most profit via advertising revenue?
Young women interviewers, indeed. The only reason Trump agreed to the interview; he knew he could wool them around (and he did). Now we have 3 major networks -- CBS (Stahl/Greene interview), CNN (Collins/Trump debacle 1), and NBC (Welker/Trump debacle 2) -- normalizing a fascist party and its wanna-be dictator. We all need to contact CNN, CBS and NBC to complain and explain the terrrible danger they are fomenting. Without our voice, their viewers, they will NEVER change their methods.
Well, whatever you thought about the interview, Kristen Welker is actually an experienced reporter on the national scene, and not some wet-behind-the-ears rookie.
I thought Jon Stewart was going to interview Trump. Of course, Jon would make mince meat out of trump..
Harvard isn't sending us their best.
Ivy League schools are utter tosh
Exactly!
Your not
I am one of the many who are sick and tired of American politics. Too sick to watch most news sources. Not surprised by NBC, CNN and sometimes even find NYT full of fluff. That said I read Hubbell essentially every day. I am grateful for the updates and especially the optimism and stories of many who inspire me to be more active. I live part of the year abroad and as bad as MAGA extremism and guns are in the US, I continue to appreciate how the US is a true country of possibility almost like no other. And yet, we must all work to protect it. Sadly, as Robert notes, again, Citizens United and the Supreme Court and the (new?)GOP have tortured our system. Kudos to those who continue to fight. Thank you. May your inspiration inspire countless others, like me, to greater activism.
I am sick about Texas. The failure to convict the AG is a kick in the gut.
I was born and raised in central Texas and still have family and friends there. I don’t go back often as I refuse to spend any money there that would generate tax revenue for the state.
The government has gone off the rails, drank the Kool-aid, crawled through the worm hole and landed in some alternate universe where up is down and batshit crazy seems to be the norm.
I know that there are good people in Texas, like in Florida, who are fighting an exhausting uphill battle for representation. God bless them. May 2024 be a turning point.
Robert, your last comment in the leading section, "Let’s hope that the grownups in the room take charge—soon" underscores the GOP's problem. There ARE no grownups in the room.
There are, theoretically, 211 adults in the room Bob. Outside the House they're called Democrats, but they seem to have gone missing. Mr. Jeffries and company should be doing much more than watch the GOP make greater fools of themselves than they already are. The strategy has been discussed to death, it is time for action and there is no good reason to procrastinate.
Hi Dave, I left out the sentence that preceded it: "In short, no one is in charge of the GOP caucus at this moment." The "room" therefore seemed to refer to the GOP caucus.
I'm not sure what the Dems can do to change things as long as McCarthy is acting as SOTH. What is the strategy of which you speak?
It's a variation of Jerry Weiss's suggestion that a 'moderate' Republican like Don Bacon enter a motion to vacate and, with the support of some Democrats, remove McCarthy, replace him with the instigator and, working across aisles, get the House back to regular order. Another approach, and one more in keeping with legislative political norms, would be for Jeffries and his crew to seek out enough Republicans who are tired of the B.S. to make up a majority, enter the Senate version of the appropriations bills and push them through. It's all based on the fact that the Freekdumb Caucus is louder than their numbers warrant, and they've got McCarthy by a very tender spot so he won't do anything other than buckle under. The theory behind Jeffries replacing Pelosi was that she'd be there to coach him along and that he had enough smarts of his own to grow into the job. So far, that theory hasn't been born out in practice that I can see.
I see. I've often wondered if it would be beneficial for a Democrat to enter such a motion. They'd have to have a palatable Republican in mind as a successor though, and I'm not sure such a creature exists anymore. I'm not ready to give up on Jeffries, although I do wish he'd be more visible. Being Pelosi's understudy would likely look a lot different if the Dems were still in the majority, but as the Minority Leader, it's a lot different. Here's an idea: let's make him Speaker of the House in 2024!
I'm not familiar enough with that particular rule to know if a Democrat could move to vacate or if that would have to come from a Republican. In Robert's Rules, any member can enter a motion, but Congressional parliamentary procedure is, at best, a perversion of the idea of Order.
There's no doubt Jeffries would have an easier time as Majority Leader or Speaker, but he went into the job knowing what his status was likely to be. From here, it looks like he's got the freedom to try pretty much anything and blame any adverse consequences on McCarthy. He and, by extension, the President, would benefit from a more active (pro-active?) approach instead of the reactive commentary we've seen so far. There are some eloquent speakers in the Democratic caucus but all we've heard from them is how silly the GOP is and how meaningless their investigations have been so far. That might be good for the next election campaign, but it's not getting anything done right now.
I have high hopes that he will be Speaker 16 months hence but we've got to get through those 16 months first. And, of course, re-elect Mr. Biden.
I'm fairly certain that the motion to vacate can come from any member, but it could be fraught with danger if a Dem does it. I agree that we have to get thru the next 16 months first, but as long as the Republicans are in the majority in the House, I don't foresee anything but chaos reigning and smoke coming from the chamber. It's clear that the R's strategy is to make it appear that President Biden's government is ineffective by sabotaging everything they can. As you suggest, the D's need a strategy, and it should be one of offense instead of defense. The R's idea of "offense" is being offensive.
Amen!
Would that Jeffries could.
Bob, you are right, but McCarthy is acting as SLOTH: Speaker/Loser Of The House.
Love it!
I think there are adults. But where are they? Why aren't they speaking out when it comes to this government shutdown? Am I naive? Okay, I've answered my own question!
As in Texas, any GOP congress member who bucks the plan will be primaried with endless money against them.
End Citizens United! It will solve a host of problems with which we have been contending.
NBC deserves a boycott.
I totally agree. Let's do it! Boycott NBC and while we're at it, CNN too. I rarely listen to the msm but I know many who do.Punch 'em in the mouth with poor ratings.
I guess I’m in a minority, here.
I watch CNN after the PBS News (often disappointing). I find Erin McNeil’s news to be enlightening, with good, well-informed “guests” (even most of the Republicans). Her interviews about Ukraine with retired generals bring in a level of expertise that NYT and WaPo articles seem to lack.
different kettle of fish
Never watch CNN anymore and both my husband and I have removed it as a "pre-set" in our cars. Also took it off of my computer/iPad/phone.
We have Dish and they are currently in a fight with NBC, so it is off the air for us. It is good practice for me to stop watching their news programs. However, I stopped watching ABC News years ago, as they had become increasingly sensationalist, and Norah O'Donnell on CBS always comes across as biased to the right to me, so while we do watch a half hour of some national news, just in case we missed something, my husband and I both get most of our news from reading and for me, NPR in the car (also guilty of 'both-sidesing' many political stories. I'm grateful for Robert and a few others who distill the important stories for me.
I just wrote the following to NBC/Comcast investor relations. They need to hear from us. Feel free to cut, paste and use:
"I want you to know how disgraceful Meet The Press's interview with Trump was, in my opinion and that of many, many viewers and investors. Just providing him a platform for his continuous lies is offensive enough. That the network would provide him such a prestigious free venue to broadcast his lies and traitorous pronouncements is a sign that NBC does not take its role as a member of the free press seriously or recognize the danger in giving an enemy of our country the air space to continue to promote his venomous lies and to try to influence the election process in insidious ways. The interviewer was NOT up to the task. Journalistic "once over lightly" will not do it to protect our constitution and democratic traditions. NBC News risks complicity with these fascistic forces by airing their views as if they were in some way mainstream and not, by design, highly destructive to our system and traditions. SHAME ON YOU, NBC NEWS!"
Brilliant!
Excellent
No one is in charge of House GOP, there are no adults in the room and our country continues to suffer. I was appalled that Meet the Press did that “interview” with Trump. I did not watch. I walk out of the room whenever his face or voice is on the television. I don’t watch the evening news anymore. My husband watched NBC with Lester Holt but I will suggest my husband find a different channel for now. And I think we should all write to NBC to share our displeasure.
Thank you, Robert, for continuing these true news letters!
So when will Kristen Welker interview Joe Biden in the same way she did with Trump? And will her second question be about Hunter? If she were to ask Joe why he wants a second term, he could do a lot worse than to say, “Well, one reason is to defend the rule of law. You know, Republicans—not all of them, but the ones with power—are against the idea that the law governs, even when you don’t like the results.”
BOR-ING!
/s
But seriously, many many many Americans (including Democrats) want to be entertained, not mentally engaged.
NBC's softball interview of Trump, the indicted leader of the 1/6 coup attempt, on its Meet the Press show was an incredible disgrace. It was another historic low for our country. The corporate media is a big part of why Americans are so cynical about our government.
The bum Trump has no business being treated by the media as a legitimate political candidate for anything.
Well said John
There wa# never any reason to believe that the Texas Snate would do what the US Senate would not when controlled by corrupt Republicans.
I use to live in Philadelphia and knew Kristen Welker as a child through her mother. She is a bright and accomplished journalists. If the media is going to interview Trump then they have to ask the hard questions and not tip toe around them. You can’t hurt his feelings and you need to make him uncomfortable and you need to cut through his bullshit and lies. Unfortunately this was not accomplished in this interview and Trump got fee air time. Biden should ask for equal time. The Paxton trial and acquittal demonstrated how dark money and Trump allies can threaten and intimidate perspective jurors and this should be a warning regarding upcoming trials. The reality is the MAGA cult will try and influence and intimate anyone who wants to convict Trump secretly and out of view.
He apparently was offered equal time, and declined - per another reader of this Newsletter!
If I were Biden I would want equal time in a different format
Bob Morgan suggested fireside chats, a format I think would be comfortable for Biden. Bob doesn't think it should be for campaign promotion, but I think he certainly should outline plans he has when re-elected. Especially since Trump has no plans, as is obvious by his recent interviews (which I haven't watched but have read & heard about)!
I hope Texans send Ted Cruz back to Cancun. His 2015-2016 flip from ardent anti-Trumper to slavish pro-Trumper has to be among the top head-snapping turnarounds in modern politics. And as with the Dan Patrick-Ken Paxton love-in, it's all about and facilitated by the dark money pools so handily made possible by our GOP Supreme Court.
The MAGA GOP has entered the realm of moral turpitude, "committing an acts or behaviors that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". They brazenly embrace greed, corruption, and deceit.
Dismissive and contemptuous of the American electorate, they pillage the legislative process to bully their extreme agenda down our throats. Any semblance of thoughtful leadership in advancing the common good of our country has been willfully abandoned.
Capitulation, denial, and rationalization have been the cowardly retreat of those GOP politicians and media networks attempting to stay afloat and hoping that this storm will pass. These actions only empower Trump's influence and confuse fair minded people.
The Democrats must be far more aggressive in pushing back and calling out the destructive, insurgent, and reckless behaviors and actions of the GOP. Moral turpitude must be exposed and condemned.
I hate to be defeatist --- the press will not change. It's only getting worse. As it relates to Trump and Biden, they are becoming a more polite, softer version of Fox News. As Robert always says - it's up to us to continue our efforts to get Democrats in power.
Robert, your closing comments about Texas buoyed me. I am up early, preparing for LWV registrations at college campuses and naturalization events. We’ll keep plugging. Texas readers, encourage your friends to get certified as volunteer deputy registrants--Texas is a non-voting state, largely due to the hassle of registering to begin with. We need more volunteers to turn this around!
Cathy, thanks for all you do!
There's no reason for the national media to "cover" Trump that serves the common good. The only right, "democratic" thing to do is to make a fashion statement: arrest the Tangerine T*** and "cover" him in an orange jump suit to compliment his hair. And there's no need to coach him on the proper facial expression for media appearances; he's already got the scowl of a rabid fox caught in a trap down pat. He should have been incarcerated weeks ago, right after Judge Chutkan warned him not to intimidate witnesses and contaminate the jury pool with his vile bullshit, but there he is, on national television no less, spewing lies and terrorizing the American people with his fascist demands.
Trump did accomplish something, however. He exposed the illegitimacy of our mainstream media for all to see, well, at least for those who "have eyes to see." Throw your televisions in the dumpster, my fellow Americans, and subscribe to Today's Edition Newsletter and wake *#F***up!
The other side of your argument is potentially independent voters saw the interview and it confirmed for them why they won’t vote for Trump. His answers were unrealistic and not believable and more importantly were not a defense against his crimes.
Yeah I'm sure that happened.