Asking a politician how they are going to pay for programs that will result in trillions of dollars of federal revenue to be spent is hardly a BS question. She should have a canned answer waiting for such a basic question that is a central component of the progressive platform, which btw is about a million miles from a gotcha question. The only problem I see is that the media aren't asking the same question when Republicans want to cut taxes and increase spending on defense etc. There needs to be an even application to the line of inquiry where both sides are taken to task about how they are going to fund their programs.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Asking a politician how they are going to pay for programs that will result in trillions of dollars of federal revenue to be spent is hardly a BS question. She should have a canned answer waiting for such a basic question that is a central component of the progressive platform, which btw is about a million miles from a gotcha question. The only problem I see is that the media aren't asking the same question when Republicans want to cut taxes and increase spending on defense etc. There needs to be an even application to the line of inquiry where both sides are taken to task about how they are going to fund their programs.
I will watch this video as I said.
But my conclusions are based on what I have seen before.
Unimpressed.
Yep. She is still 'yong & lernin' and will eventually grow into dealing with fairly mundane questions better. She's better now than a few months ago, so she should be fine once she gets into office.
Any professional politician or media person who says "Medicare for all costs $32 trillion" without immediately saying that the current system costs $34 trillion is a corporate hack and is not to be trusted on anything.
When has jake tapper expressed a single morsel of doubt for an american war or questioned its pricetag?
Helping people live is worthy of (disingenuous) debate but a machine that brings death from the sky to people around the world on a moment's notice is just rubber stamped.
Helping people live is worthy of (disingenuous) debate but a machine that brings death from the sky to people around the world on a moment's notice is just rubber stamped.
She's going to have to get used to going on mainstream shows while in congress. No more chillin' on YouTube with Cenk Uygur who asks her self-affirming softball questions about how cool the progressive cause is.
Ask yourself what you want from a journalist? Do you want them to let the politician get away with answering the questions they want to answer? To manipulate the narrative and get away softly or do you want them to press them for answers they might not want to give?
I’d agree with you if I thought he had some sort of bias but he has the same objectivity and tenacity whether the politician is on the left, right or straight down the centre.
Well okay but the problem is that he does have a bias, it's just not one that's as simple as left right center. It is a bias.100% in favor of every military excursion and imperialist war. And against social programs that actually help people.
That's the old way of doing things.
Do you think Tapper knows that the universal idea of single payer proponents is that it will be paid for by what we already spend on healthcare, maybe even less? If so then it's a bullshit question. In fact she told him this in the first thirty seconds but he didn't seem to understand it or chose to ignore it.
Its not his job to presume any of that. He wants to know if a central player in the universal healthcare debate is able to clearly elucidate its core components including how it would be funded. Its literally the bullseye of what a proper journalist should be asking.
CNN's advertisers are from big pharma companies.Tapper is just protecting his bosses.
She should have just said "we find a way to fund unnecessary wars so we will find a way to fund necessary healthcare "
I've heard her say similar. It's a dodge but it's a good dodge.
I've heard her say similar. It's a dodge but it's a good dodge.
Does she need to become an expert? Yes. But I will watch this later.
Yes it is. It's his job to know the issues. He's just trying to catch her out and it's what he does. Another example of why the media is failing this country. Tapper is way too far up his own arse.
I've said above what I expect from a journalist.
Read my post.
I mention Russert as a standard we need to have in this country. I've seen tougher and better journalists in my life.
Russert used to be tough on both Republicans and Democrats.
He prepared and knew the subject without being an expert. But he demanded the person he was interviewing to be an expert.
He did not allow spin.
But he also did not throw out unsubstantiated numbers.
Nope. He's asking normal tough questions that most journos who aren't in the tank with are expected to ask. Just because you happen to support the policy doesn't mean the journo is obliged to pepper the guest with softball questions that do little to answer the fundamental components of the program.
Here's how Sanders dealt with Tapper - far more convincing. She will learn.
Last edited:
She should just memorize Sanders' web page. He literally lists a litany of different funding streams of how to pay for it. That would be much better than her tap dancing around the issue.
You hear what you want to hear. Tapper is a corporate shill and more concerned about his own profile than anything else.
I disagree. Its his job to Know the subject he is talking about without being an expert. His job is to educate the viewer. Not to test the person he is interviewing. If he did not know his subject how can he tell if he is being misled?
His job is to be a moderator on behalf of the viewer.
Exactly, he was doing his best to frame the interview in order to get something for a highlight reel.
Well yes. You are in the U.S. where most media are owned by corporations. That's hardly news and frankly, she is going to have to deal with mainstream media if she's in Congress.
Yes, she needs to start calling Tapper and his ilk a cnut in nice Congressional terms.
His job is to test the person who he is interviewing to see if they know what they are talking about or whether they are attempting to BS the audience with something they themselves can't speak authoritatively about. That's the fundamental purpose of journalism - to act as a check on political power.
whoever you work for you can have some integrity.
I use Russert as an example.
In fact his integrity enhanced viewership.
Meet the Press has never got back the ratings it used to have.
People stopped watching because it was the same ol prepared stuff without being seriously challenged.
Kelly Anne Conway would have been destroyed by Russert.
We have to disagree. A journalists job is to get to the facts. You cannot do that unless you know the subject you are discussing.
Only in authoritarian states. In democratic systems it is there to inform, contextualize, and act as a check on political power.
Russert was pretty good but so are some of the newer hosts. Stephanopolous does a pretty good job today without the need to be too overbearing about it.
tbf I stopped watching him after he softballed Hillary.
ah well.
I lose patience with these guys.
Too cynical with the entire political stuff.
btw Russert was tough ..never overbearing.
Stupid for Dems to refuse being there. Would allow GOP spin whatever way they like.
what a crock.
Reality isn't discriminatory. It is what it is. You can get dry news reading on PBS or BBC, but not on a vast majority of mainstream stations. They contextualize information for their respective core audiences.
I doubt it will matter in the end since they just announced Kavanaugh is going to return before the committee on Monday. A small win for the Dems since it would mean the confirmation vote will get delayed.
Hes asking blatantly disingenuous questions, not "tough" questions.
Those numbers are designed to mislead without context.
The Paris accords want to increase temperature by 1.5 degrees! They will kill us all!
350 ppm of dissolved solids?! In the water our children drink?!
In the video quoted, Tapper asks Bernie why single payer failed in CA and VT, and why in that case he thinks it would work nationally. Do you think that's a disingenuous question ?