2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

4bars said:
@Raoul . How is CNN giving a fair platform to both parties in a fair way, when Trump hijacked this fairness menacing to pull off if CNN would not "behave" aka makong CNN selfcensor themelves to ask certain questions? IMO this is CNN giving an advanage to Trump (R) vs D
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that CNN should become the left-wing version of Fox
 
I might have shared this here before, although I don't recall posting on this particular forum before, but it speaks to at least one aspect of what happened to Americans in the post-Vietnam/post-Nixon/post-Clinton/cable and social media silo age we live in, where we seek out bubbles and stay in them.

Right after the 2016 election Frank Luntz convened a focus group of Trump supporters on Fox News and pushed them hard on Donald Trump. "How could you support a man who did this and that and so on?" A white woman in her 50s answered the question as to how she could support a man who repeatedly lies. Her answer?

"I know he lies, but he tells me the lies I want to hear."

That sums it up perfectly.

Let me give you an example of how this fukked up mentality works. I met a guy at a dinner party last fall. He was sporting a MAGA hat but I felt it was important to make him feel welcome but the conversation quickly turned to Donald and his supposed greatness. There was no way he could actually have lost the election, you see, since he clearly had larger crowds at his rallies than Biden did. I explained that the size of one's rallies has no correlation to the casting of actual votes. He couldn't deny that, although he still couldn't embrace the logic that one had nothing to do with the other. But then he pivoted to "obvious vote fraud", to which I replied there was no actual evidence of even minor incidence of vote fraud, let alone sufficient vote fraud to throw the win that Donald deserved to the defeat he didn't deserve...and that two of the states Donald complained were riddled with fraud were states run by Republicans. His only reply was that he believed in Donald, despite finally acknowledging that there was no factual support whatsoever of vote fraud. This guy heard the lie he wanted to hear and was grateful for the lie that was told to him.

Tens of millions of Americans want to be told the lies the want to believe. To paraphrase Pogo, the enemy is us.
 
Red in STL said:
So what you are saying is that CNN should become the left-wing version of Fox
Click to expand...

I am saying that CNN should be allowed to question any fair question to Trump without him menacing to leave. That makes CNN to self censor to please Trump.

CNN shouldn't please nor left nor right if it has to be fair and ask whatever is fair. Playing Trumps game pleasing him and being conditioned by him drive CNN closer to being real fox than left-wing version of Fox. CNN should ask fairly and if Trump wants to leave, then leave
 
Raoul said:
By allowing each candidate equal time to participate in a town hall event. These events are always partisan (as in, the audience will always be skewed towards the candidate being interviewed because they are either committed to or considering voting for them). An unfair platform would be to deliberately exclude a prominent candidate, thereby unfairly tilting the odds in favor of their opponents.
Click to expand...

equal time and equal conditions. And Trump conditioned this time in his favour on his terms that most likely the D's will not have
 
A guy called Vivek Ramaswamy being the republican nominee...
 
4bars said:
equal time and equal conditions. And Trump conditioned this time in his favour on his terms that most likely the D's will not have
Click to expand...
D's tend not to have a rabble favouring them and are more likely to answer questions and and not rant, rave and outright lie
 
Red in STL said:
D's tend not to have a rabble favouring them and are more likely to answer questions and and not rant, rave and outright lie
Click to expand...

And then we enter on the field of the tolerance to intolerance. if you tolerate intolerance, intolerance wins.

to be a fair representation by CNN it has to be an even playing field, so no, in this case, CNN wasnt a guarantor of equality for both parties as it favoured R (Trump) giving him some privileges that would not give to D's
 
4bars said:
And then we enter on the field of the tolerance to intolerance. if you tolerate intolerance, intolerance wins.

to be a fair representation by CNN it has to be an even playing field, so no, in this case, CNN wasnt a guarantor of equality for both parties as it favoured R (Trump) giving him some privileges that would not give to D's
Click to expand...
Such as?
 
Red in STL said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

I a, just saying to give a platform to a person that expressed that it could be a disaster if they question him about the sexual harassement (to leave the town hall). How you can consent someone that blackmails the town hall putting under pressure the press and conditioning what they might ask or not just in case. If someone blackmails you, you don't offer him the opportunity or the townhall might be questioned for the future candidates if they were in unfavourable questioning perverting what they are trying to achieve. Fair for everyone
 
Raoul said:
That's been CNN's MO since it started over 40 years ago. They pitted a left and right pundit against one another to argue with one another. I think the problem today is we have compartmentalized audiences who have been afflicted by network homophily, who now get triggered whenever they hear an opposition opinion being platformed. Unfortunately, that's not how a healthy society should work. It should allow a broader spectrum of opinions into the debate and let the audience decide which ideas are better than others. That has largely always been the CNN model.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's ultimately dishonest model. It's been discussed before but that whole left-right 50-50 ends up legitimizing far right rubbish. Climate change is the classic example. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus if a network decides they need to give 50-50 to "both sides" it projects a very skewed and unrealistic worldview that gives credibility to the uncredible views. A news network should be focused on truth not 50-50 both sides everything. I'd like to see them out on 99 scientists and 1 climate denier to reflect the reality of science rather than put one from left and one from right.
 
Raoul said:
By allowing each candidate equal time to participate in a town hall event. These events are always partisan (as in, the audience will always be skewed towards the candidate being interviewed because they are either committed to or considering voting for them). An unfair platform would be to deliberately exclude a prominent candidate, thereby unfairly tilting the odds in favor of their opponents.
Click to expand...

Why does the audience have to be skewed? In the UK when they do political programming, huge effort goes into trying to balance the audience (it's not always successful, Question Time has been accused of not doing this properly for instance) Surely there is more to be gained from a balanced audience asking questions from both sides of the political spectrum.
 
The Boy said:
Why does the audience have to be skewed? In the UK when they do political programming, huge effort goes into trying to balance the audience (it's not always successful, Question Time has been accused of not doing this properly for instance) Surely there is more to be gained from a balanced audience asking questions from both sides of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

CNN could've screened the audience but that wouldn't have been particularly representative of the types of people you would want at a public town hall. The reason they skew towards the party of the candidates is because they are supposed to be in some way interested in voting for whoever is being interviewed. That's not to say there weren't a fair number of independents there as well.
 
Raoul said:
CNN could've screened the audience but that wouldn't have been particularly representative of the types of people you would want at a public town hall. The reason they skew towards the party of the candidates is because they are supposed to be in some way interested in voting for whoever is being interviewed. That's not to say there weren't a fair number of independents there as well.
Click to expand...
I don't get this, it's probably me being a bit thick, but surely ensuring the audience has an interest in voting for the candidate being questioned gives them a much easier ride, almost like a toned down rally. Where as an audience from both sides will, on paper, produce a more insightful and informative set of answers for a wider demographic of TV audience/potential voters.
 
The Boy said:
I don't get this, it's probably me being a bit thick, but surely ensuring the audience has an interest in voting for the candidate being questioned gives them a much easier ride, almost like a toned down rally. Where as an audience from both sides will, on paper, produce a more insightful and informative set of answers for a wider demographic of TV audience/potential voters.
Click to expand...
This townhall was to do with a Republican primary not the general election, the primary is to determine who the Republican nominee will be, there are no Democratic candidates in the part of the process
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The problem is that it's ultimately dishonest model. It's been discussed before but that whole left-right 50-50 ends up legitimizing far right rubbish. Climate change is the classic example. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus if a network decides they need to give 50-50 to "both sides" it projects a very skewed and unrealistic worldview that gives credibility to the uncredible views. A news network should be focused on truth not 50-50 both sides everything. I'd like to see them out on 99 scientists and 1 climate denier to reflect the reality of science rather than put one from left and one from right.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, just because millions of people believe in something thats wrong doesn't make their opinions any more valid.

Whats next, should we have CNN host "both sides" of flat earth vs round earth as well? Some things just aren't worth debating anymore.
 
Morty_ said:
Exactly this, just because millions of people believe in something thats wrong doesn't make their opinions any more valid.

Whats next, should we have CNN host "both sides" of flat earth vs round earth as well? Some things just aren't worth debating anymore.
Click to expand...

There's no way around it in a free, democratic society with a two party system. Unless one wants to become MSNBC or Fox - two channels where viewers tune into get information they already agree with.
 
Raoul said:
There's no way around it in a free, democratic society with a two party system. Unless one wants to become MSNBC or Fox - two channels where viewers tune into get information they already agree with.
Click to expand...

There are lot of topics that are grey, or you can at least make the argument that one side has a point, and those should be discussed, however, on stuff like climate change, election denialism, or flat earth, no, there is no "both sides" to it, so everyone should just ignore it and stop wasting time.
 
Morty_ said:
There are lot of topics that are grey, or you can at least make the argument that one side has a point, however, on stuff like climate change, election denialism, or flat earth, no, there is no "both sides" to it, so everyone should just ignore it and stop wasting time.
Click to expand...

That's why its the journalist's responsibility to push back and fact check and not allow the person lying free reign to do whatever they want. And its not like Trump will be on CNN all the time now. This was just one of many candidate town halls and I suspect Trump won't be on the channel much until we get to the debates.
 
Morty_ said:
Exactly this, just because millions of people believe in something thats wrong doesn't make their opinions any more valid.

Whats next, should we have CNN host "both sides" of flat earth vs round earth as well? Some things just aren't worth debating anymore.
Click to expand...
Morty_ said:
There are lot of topics that are grey, or you can at least make the argument that one side has a point, and those should be discussed, however, on stuff like climate change, election denialism, or flat earth, no, there is no "both sides" to it, so everyone should just ignore it and stop wasting time.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.

Raoul said:
There's no way around it in a free, democratic society with a two party system. Unless one wants to become MSNBC or Fox - two channels where viewers tune into get information they already agree with.
Click to expand...

No, that's pure nonsense and even the framers of the Constitution knew that, hence the need for a free press, one notion they actually did get correct.

For a free press to actually be a free press they should have only one master: the public. A free press is only responsible for giving the public the best attempts at the truth. Anything else, including what you imply here, means they are just becoming a propaganda arm. A network that insists on this 50-50 split despite the topic or truth is just an attempt at being the propaganda arm of both political parties. That's not the role of a free press in a free democratic society. The options are not a) be a propaganda arm for one party or and only or b) attempt to be a propaganda arm for both parties simultaneously.

The third option is for the news networks, which are supposed to be the free press in a "free democratic society", to work for the public not either or both political parties. So if there is an issue with scientific consensus, like climate change, their only responsibility is to present that scientific consensus honestly to the public, not 50-50 publish the other side. Or, in the case of this interview, if Trump is going to pathologically lie, then the interviewer should be hard countering over and over again with no problem cutting off Trump's mic so it's clear that the truth gets more airtime than a bunch of lies and propaganda. That's what a free press in a free democratic society does. That is their role. That is the only way to hold out-of-control wealth and political parties in a two-party system accountable.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
No, that's pure nonsense and even the framers of the Constitution knew that, hence the need for a free press, one notion they actually did get correct.

For a free press to actually be a free press they should have only one master: the public. A free press is only responsible for giving the public the best attempts at the truth. Anything else, including what you imply here, means they are just becoming a propaganda arm. A network that insists on this 50-50 split despite the topic or truth is just an attempt at being the propaganda arm of both political parties. That's not the role of a free press in a free democratic society. The options are not a) be a propaganda arm for one party or and only or b) attempt to be a propaganda arm for both parties simultaneously.

The third option is for the news networks, which are supposed to be the free press in a "free democratic society", to work for the public not either or both political parties. So if there is an issue with scientific consensus, like climate change, their only responsibility is to present that scientific consensus honestly to the public, not 50-50 publish the other side. Or, in the case of this interview, if Trump is going to pathologically lie, then the interviewer should be hard countering over and over again with no problem cutting off Trump's mic so it's clear that the truth gets more airtime than a bunch of lies and propaganda. That's what a free press in a free democratic society does. That is their role. That is the only way to hold out-of-control wealth and political parties in a two-party system accountable.
Click to expand...

That's not reality though - what is reality is that this is fundamentally a two party system in a capitalist society with corporate owned news entities, which means only credible candidates from the two major parties are likely to get air time - Trump being one of them. But that doesn't mean that fringe candidates never get on the air - see Marianne Williamson, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, and others in previous cycles.
 
Raoul said:
That's why its the journalist's responsibility to push back and fact check and not allow the person lying free reign to do whatever they want. And its not like Trump will be on CNN all the time now. This was just one of many candidate town halls and I suspect Trump won't be on the channel much until we get to the debates.
Click to expand...

Did she really push back?

I didn’t watch it, but I am seeing many on social media blaming CNN for letting him get away with many lies with too little follow back.

Take this for exemple.



 
Raoul said:
That's not reality though - what is reality is that this is fundamentally a two party system in capitalist society with corporate owned news entities, which means only credible candidates from the two major parties are likely to get air time - Trump being one of them. But that doesn't mean that fringe candidates never get on the air - see Marianne Williamson, Rand Paul, and others in previous cycles.
Click to expand...

It could be the reality if we actually had a free press in television news, as we still sort of do in print media (like The Atlantic) and radio media (NPR to a degree) and to some extent independent social media news (podcasts/youtube channels that actually put in the work etc).

It's not about fringe candidates getting on the air or not, it's about focusing on the truth once any candidate is on the air. Trump's Lies per Second stat for that town hall have to be a record-setter, even for Trump. Kaitlyn did the bare minimum to get some objections "on the record" but she could have done far more in calling out his lies or challenging him even harder to produce proof when he lies about having videos showing people voting 7 or 28 times or whatever number he said.

If CNN and their more Republican-leaning corporate leadership want to be a propaganda arm then that is what it is but it's important to call them out for just trying to be a propaganda arm for both parties and not being a true free press news network. As Jon Stewart said years ago to get Crossfire erased, working for the public, not the two political parties, doesn't pay as well but at least they can sleep at night knowing they did the right thing.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It could be the reality if we actually had a free press in television news, as we still sort of do in print media (like The Atlantic) and radio media (NPR to a degree) and to some extent independent social media news (podcasts/youtube channels that actually put in the work etc).

It's not about fringe candidates getting on the air or not, it's about focusing on the truth once any candidate is on the air. Trump's Lies per Second stat for that town hall have to be a record-setter, even for Trump. Kaitlyn did the bare minimum to get some objections "on the record" but she could have done far more in calling out his lies or challenging him even harder to produce proof when he lies about having videos showing people voting 7 or 28 times or whatever number he said.

If CNN and their more Republican-leaning corporate leadership want to be a propaganda arm then that is what it is but it's important to call them out for just trying to be a propaganda arm for both parties and not being a true free press news network. As Jon Stewart said, years ago to get Crossfire erased, working for the public, not the two political parties, doesn't pay as well but at least they can sleep at night knowing they did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Stewart would be right. That's the drawback of having a corporate owned system that is driven by two competing parties. Sanders has always been right about the need to go to publicly funded campaigns.
 
Maticmaker said:
That is democracy, we all have the right to be wrong!
Click to expand...

But you don't have the right to have equal airtime in a free press if you are wrong.

Raoul said:
Stewart would be right. That's the drawback of having a corporate owned system that is driven by two competing parties. Sanders has always been right about the need to go to publicly funded campaigns.
Click to expand...

That's very true. And Citizens United has been a disaster for US politics as has been discussed on here for a decade.

But in this instance, to adapt the old law school analogy, when Trump is pounding the table loudly with lies, it's the job of a journalist interviewer to counter by pounding the facts and the law just as hard, not politely tapping the table with two fingers.
 
Pintu said:
Did she really push back?

I didn’t watch it, but I am seeing many on social media blaming CNN for letting him get away with many lies with too little follow back.

Take this for exemple.



Click to expand...


Yes, she interrupted the hell out of him. Had she done it more, it would've made having the event pointless because it would've been more of an argument between her and Trump. People on social media are just upset that Trump was allowed on CNN, which is to be expected given how we're in a world of compartmentalized group think, de-platforming of opposing views, and cancel culture.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It could be the reality if we actually had a free press in television news, as we still sort of do in print media (like The Atlantic) and radio media (NPR to a degree) and to some extent independent social media news (podcasts/youtube channels that actually put in the work etc).

It's not about fringe candidates getting on the air or not, it's about focusing on the truth once any candidate is on the air. Trump's Lies per Second stat for that town hall have to be a record-setter, even for Trump. Kaitlyn did the bare minimum to get some objections "on the record" but she could have done far more in calling out his lies or challenging him even harder to produce proof when he lies about having videos showing people voting 7 or 28 times or whatever number he said.

If CNN and their more Republican-leaning corporate leadership want to be a propaganda arm then that is what it is but it's important to call them out for just trying to be a propaganda arm for both parties and not being a true free press news network. As Jon Stewart said years ago to get Crossfire erased, working for the public, not the two political parties, doesn't pay as well but at least they can sleep at night knowing they did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem with platforming people like Trump, when every other word is a lie, how are you supposed to keep up with it all? Kaitlyn probably did the best she could, the leadership at CNN are the ones to blame, and in my mind, they did this on purpose.

They knew it would turn into a horror-show, but hey, at least they got their ratings!
 
Raoul said:
Yes, she interrupted the hell out of him. Had she done it more, it would've made having the event pointless because it would've been more of an argument between her and Trump. People on social media are just upset that Trump was allowed on CNN, which is to be expected given how we're in a world of compartmentalized group think, de-platforming of opposing views, and cancel culture.
Click to expand...
I think folks really need to start actually watching these things rather than taking whatever XYZ says on social media, Kaitlin Collins pushed back as you say on virtually everything.

Folks also need to remember that this wasn't a town hall in relation to the general election, it was in relation to the GOP primaries to determine who will be the GOP nominee, if this had been a general election town hall there is no way CNN would have allowed the audience it did here
 
Red in STL said:
I think folks really need to start actually watching these things rather than taking whatever XYZ says on social media, Kaitlin Collins pushed back as you say on virtually everything.

Folks also need to remember that this wasn't a town hall in relation to the general election, it was in relation to the GOP primaries to determine who will be the GOP nominee, if this had been a general election town hall there is no way CNN would have allowed the audience it did here
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the trouble with people only getting their news from bite sized tweets that are obviously intended to wind people up.
 
I don't know what republicans think there is to gain from constantly talking about raising the voting age, and belittling the youth vote, considering there is basically zero chance to raise it anyway.

Its not something they just can do in congress on the fly, it required a constitutional amendment, 2/3 of congress to vote for, so good luck with that.

So, make the youth hate you even more, and gain what, exactly?
 
Morty_ said:
I don't know what republicans think there is to gain from constantly talking about raising the voting age, and belittling the youth vote, considering there is basically zero chance to raise it anyway.

Its not something they just can do in congress on the fly, it required a constitutional amendment, 2/3 of congress to vote for, so good luck with that.

So, make the youth hate you even more, and gain what, exactly?
Click to expand...

I don't even know many Republicans pushing it, beyond that Indian guy running as a Republican.
 
Raoul said:
I don't even know many Republicans pushing it, beyond that Indian guy running as a Republican.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there were a bunch right after the midterms, and now there is a republican candidate talking about it, Vivek.

I say that suffice to say "quite a few", its not front and centre, but its not background noise either.
 
Raoul said:
The woman at 6:20 is the demographic Trump is banking on.

Click to expand...


65-year old Stephen is the guy that would be in his recliner watching Fox News while Donald fecked his wife in the bedroom. Or perhaps would be watching Donald pound his wife, wearing his MAGA hat of course and then asking Donald to sign it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.