Yesterday I read a thread about CNN's Abby Phillip interviewing Trump campaign advisor Bryan Lanza. Apparently they had a back and forth over the latest Jack Smith filing, and Lanza made up a bunch of lies about the timing of the filing, suggesting that Jack Smith was doing it for political reasons. Abby Phillip pushed back and explained the truth of the matter (the Supreme Court said that the extent of Trump's immunity had to be determined), and Lanza talked over her saying that no, it was because Smith is biased and it's all a plot to get Trump. So Phillip argued with him, again explaining the truth.
This is what cable news anchors always do, and they should change their tactics. Once they've established a fact for the audience, they no longer need to argue over it -- instead they should start questioning what the hell is wrong with their guest. Because that's actually newsworthy. I don't need to see a debate over whether the sky is blue or not.
If you're interviewing an important Republican on national TV, and he's saying things which are blatant, easily-disproven nonsense, don't sit there trying to push back against his lies, because all you're doing is allowing him to create doubt -- over established facts! -- in the minds of your audience. Instead, give the facts their due respect as actual, indisputable facts, and ask the interviewee why he keeps saying things that he knows are not true. Ask the interviewee how he has the gall to come on national TV and lie so smoothly to everybody. Maybe even act a bit shocked! Because you know what? It is actually a bit shocking!
Don't debate proven facts. Instead focus on the important piece of news: The Republican in front of you is saying something crazy. Does he also think the earth is flat? Or that storks deliver babies? What the hell is wrong with this guy?
= new reply since forum marked as read