Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

Публикация

Предыдущая публикация

Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them, enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics. AND to talk about Graham is to talk about Iran, certainly he’s say so.

Ana Marie Cox

What I learned in journalism is that a person agrees to be interviewed or not and not even the president gets to dictate terms. That’s the difference between news and PR.

1260592

It’s powerful to come out and say, “We invited the president on but he refused to answer questions beyond the scope of Graham’s death and our policy is not allow guests to set ground rules for interviews.”

Обсуждение

5 прямых ответов · 8 сообщений

Agreed. Equally, if the scope of the interview has been agreed ahead of time, then the interviewer should honour that. Nothing prevents the interviewer informing viewers about the agreed scope.

You still have hope That's good

I'd at least like to know if they extended the same deference to Democratic leaders.

Ответ для En Buen Ora

LOL no.

Ответ для En Buen Ora

Yeah remember how in 2024 we heard nonstop about how Kamala Harris wasn't doing media interviews so she must be inarticulate and stupid as opposed to Trump who talked to media all the time? It's because they'd spend the whole interview doing gotcha with Harris but serve up only softballs to Trump.

Ответ для somelabels

It's not at all difficult to tell when something or someone really bothers the press--and of course, we're really talking about their managers, bosses, and owners, though we mainly just see the star employees--and when something or someone doesn't.

They’re all in the files, it’s all I can think at this point.

But that’s not what their owners instruct them to do. They are not independent journalists. They are wholly owned by fascist supporters