Wow, democrats are really showing their colors today with this whole "boycott the CNN" thing... Unless I missed soemthing he is a presidential candidate, and one who so far hasnt been found guilty of anything that would disqualify him... and a popular one.
Yes he is a piece of shit, and yes he has no business being in politics... But its not CNNs job to make those decisions. Their job is to let the candidates say their piece and let the public decide from there (or the courts if there are legal questions).
As much as I hate Trump... I lost so much respect for the democrats today. Supporting censorship, specifically doing so with the intent of winning an election in their favor, is a new low... dont be that party...
@freemo "so far hasnt been found guilty of anything that would disqualify him" as a legal matter, only impeachment and removal from office can disqualify one from serving as president. This is intentional. It stops the party in control of the DoJ from removing political opponents by trying to convict them of crimes.
Remember Nelson Mandela was a convicted felon.
Also, Trump is a terrible human being and voting for him is both stupid and evil.
@SallyStrange hahah, right, cause addressing fascism means letting the news pick our presidential candidates for us...yea ok...You have some pretty backwards views of what facism is.
@MargaretSefton I dont think Trump should get a fair shake at all..I think the courts should e3xpose his crimes and once proven he should be barred from running...
What we shouldnt expect is CNN or any other news agency to pick which candidates get a voice and which dont.
@freemo While I agree that Trump is as deserving of a platform as any other political candidate (and I haven't watched the CNN thing, only read a summary, so I could be wrong), from what I hear the issue is less that Trump had a platform and more that he was given a free ride. From the sound of things:
Trump was allowed to tell lie after lie after lie and was not called out on any of them. CNN wasn't able to even begin to either challenge his lies or provide fact checking to the viewers. It was entirely predictable and predicted that he would do this, it's not like it was a surprise to them, they should have been ready.
The audience was entirely sympathetic to him. There was nobody to ask him hard questions and they were all ready to lap up his lies.
Trump is as deserving of a platform as any significant candidate for major political office. But in giving him (or any other candidate) that platform it is incumbent on the organisation doing it to challenge the candidate, to not simply permit them to say whatever they want whether it's true or not and to make sure that they are asked the questions that they don't want to answer.
A media organisation that does not do these things is not a news or current affairs outlet, it is a propaganda outfit. I wouldn't watch Fox or OAN to get my news about Trump and American politics, and if this is how CNN behaves towards him now I wouldn't watch them either.
I havent watched it either, so maybe i will change my mind after watching it...
But...
To point #1, I dont seem to recall them ever fact checking a town hall.. Generally they faciliatate Q&A and dont get into fact checking. That is for debates and even then the host doesnt fact check thats for the other candidates to do on eachother.
#2 That sounds like more an issue with the general public... If the town hall was open to everyone and they happened to favor trump supporters, likely because anti-trump people refused to go, thats not CNNs fault... What almost certainly happened is Trump supporters overwhelmingly wanted to go and non-trump supporters overwhlemingly didnt and wanted to boycott it... so everyone who actually showed up was 99% Trump supporters... cant blame CNN for that, only person to blame would be the ones boycotting it and not going to ask those tough questions
Town halls have always been about the candidate saying whatever they want, thats how its always been, thats kinda the whole point of a town hall, to hear the candidate speak without being challenged (the other formats we have are where they are challenged). At least by the host, obviously questions from the audience can challenge the speaker, and should, but thats the democrats mistake for not bothering to show up.
@freemo As I understand it CNN selected the audience to be New Hampshire registered Republican voters and non-aligned voters planning to vote in the Republican primary. So it's not that the democrats didn't bother coming, they weren't invited. Probably to avoid a punch-up in the audience.
Maybe I don't understand the town-hall format. But if you know the candidate is going to say things that are not merely untrue in your opinion but have been found to be untrue in court multiple times, I don't think it's right to let them do that again without challenge, whatever the format.
@VoxDei If we want to start fact checking town halls we have to do the same to Biden when he talks... and other candidates... and pretty much every word out of either of their mouths tends to be a lie... so that would be fun to see.
@VoxDei Oh and as for the republican only audience.. if thats the case I guess we would have to judge it by past town halls... it sounds like this is a town hall for the republican primary and not the presidency.. in which case having a rebpulican only audience may be normal.
@freemo I'm not limiting my opinion to Trump! If you want to be elected to the highest offices you need to face the hardest questions, Biden absolutely needs to be challenged as well!
@freemo OK, well, maybe it's the format I have a problem with then. We don't really do that in the UK, we have TV debates (some), we have one-on-one interviews, but we don't really have a here-say-what-you-want-for-an-hour thing. We have party political broadcasts, but they're clearly labelled as such and don't have a moderator, it's just a canned broadcast that the party prepares but paid for by the state (for parties that have seats in Parliament already).
If a candidate wants to speak somewhere then of course they can do so, but they aren't generally carried live for an hour, you just get a couple of highlights on the news. And the TV channel would probably be obliged to present the opposing view or be subject to sanction by the regulator - there is an obligation for broadcasts to be politically balanced here that doesn't exist in the US.
I guess this comes back to the original point then? If all it was supposed to be was a Trump rally (and I'm not really seeing the difference between your description of a "town hall" and a political rally? Other than maybe the audience can ask more questions?), then CNN is responsible for their own choice to carry it. People who don't like Trump rallies are likely to be turned off by that being carried uncritically? I accept the point about if it's for the Republican primary then a Republican audience might be normal, but at the same time you're broadcasting it to everyone, Republican or not. Why is there an obligation on CNN or any network to carry that? Wait for the actual presidential race and then don't softball him (or any candidate)?
@VoxDei Thats fair... yea its a weird format specifically for a news reporter to host I suppose... but its been the norm in the USA to do this town all format since forever.
I would be ok with changing the format for everyone... in general what I want is something where the news agencies arent deciding who gets a voice and where all candidates are treated by the same standard.
@freemo> As much as I hate Trump… I lost so much respect for the democrats today. Supporting censorship, specifically doing so with the intent of winning an election in their favor, is a new low…
The first primary elections are almost a year away. Nevertheless, #CNN gave Trump a two-hour national prime time TV platform, in which he spewed a continuous stream of insurrectionist lies, mostly without challenge.
Trump's own campaign said "'We want to thank CNN for their generous donation to President Trump’s campaign!"
CNN's job is to broadcast truth. They choose instead to broadcast lies.
@barney That could be a valid argument... like if they gave this meeting to Trump and Biden requested a similar venue and was denied, then id completely support your stance and see CNN as making a mistake here.
As far as I know that didnt happen, they didnt show Trump preference over Biden as far as I know.
I expect that #CNN probably plans a similar 2-hour special for Biden (although I haven't actually seen that reported). I still think that having prime-time specials for candidates a year before the primaries even start is an abnormal grab for ratings.
My main point, though, is that last night's debacle was totally unacceptable at any point in the political process. Spending two hours airing lies, many designed to incite violence, is not excused by later giving equal time to the truth.
@barney To some extent I do agree, if political candidates are lying and still primary candidates and given the airtime that goes with that, there is a problem somewhere.... the problem isnt with CNN though as far as I can tell, the problem lies with some combination of the courts for not acting to curb Trump sooner, or the general public for showing such levels of support for such a horrific candidate.
That said, while Trump is one of the worst examples of a bad candidate by the same token we have a pretty close second in office right now, Biden. So the failure that led to him getting in office isnt much better than the failure that is allowing Trump reach the level of popularity he has.
CNN did what they did last night. The courts did not do it.
CNN put a rapist on television. They let him slut-shame the woman he raped while the audience laughed at her. They allowed him to spew violence-inciting lies for two hours.
The answer to the question of whether or not that is okay does not have anything to do with whether Biden is "a bad candidate." So I invite you to reflect, privately if you wish, on why you chose to express that opinion in this context.
Yes CNN did it not hte courts... the courts are the only ones responsible for denying presidential candidates, not CNN.. so CNN did the right choice, as disgusting as he is. It is not their place to judge which presidential candidates meet their standards to have a voice.. its a shame he got TV time and that he is running at all, but they did right by giving him the same opportunity they will give any other legally recognized candidate.
The last thing anyone should be demanding is that news organizations pick what candidates get platforms.
CNN put Trump on TV. They did it because he is a political candidate, and they presumably intend to give his opponents equal time. I question their timing, but not their fairness.
CNN allowed a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped, on national TV, while the audience laughed at her. They allowed him to spew lie after unchallenged lie, for two hours, thereby facilitating a violent insurrection against the US. Is this okay? And why is your dislike for Biden relevant to your answer?
CNN put Trump on TV. They did it because he is a political candidate, and they presumably intend to give his opponents equal time. I question their timing, but not their fairness.
Agreed
CNN allowed a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped, on national TV, while the audience laughed at her.
As I said I havent seen the actual town hall yet so I cant speak to this point. do you have the specific quote or a link to a video. Until I see it I cant judge this point either way or if your characterization of it is accurate.
They allowed him to spew lie after unchallenged lie, for two hours, thereby facilitating a violent insurrection against the US. Is this okay?
Is it ok, nope, is it normal, yup… This applies to every Biden Townhall, every Trump Townhall and virtually every town hall we have had. Fact checking has never been an element of town halls, the format has been the norm for decades to allow Q&A and for the host to do little more than facilitate the audience to ask questions… we have never fact checked and have always let the lies from all candidates fly… maybe we should change that, but Trump is hardly new, why not cry fowl when Biden was allowed to lie and not get fact checked?
And why is your dislike for Biden relevant to your answer?
Because it shows precedence and is a good litmus test to check if you are being impartial towards the candidates and holding them to equal standards.. Biden as a pro-segregationist has an abysmally racist history, would his racist history be a good enough reason for CNN to refuse to host town halls for him, probably not… Usually applying our standards to the things we support is a good litmus test to see if we truly think our standards are good ones to hold.
No. It is not "normal" for television outlets to air two hours of nonstop lies, many of which foment violent insurrection against the United States. That statement does not bear even the slightest superficial resemblance to reality.
Here are some fact-checks of the many lies that CNN let Trump tell last night:
@barney I never said you cant fact-check a town hall after the fact.. that is quite common... What is not normal is for the host news agency to fact check or push back against the candidate while the town hall is happening.
Have you even watched previous town halls,a re you even familiar with the format? Im not sure what these links have to do with the precedence set in previous town hall presentations... all those int he past were exactly as you described, two hours of nonstop lies many of which fomented violence.
My question was, is it okay for #CNN to allow a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped on national television, and to let him spend 2 hours spewing constant lies, many of which incite violence on a regular basis.
Your answer included your opinion that Biden is terrible.
It's fine to have that opinion, but that opinion has absolutely no relevance to my question whatsoever. I invite every reader of this thread to consider what went into the thought process that brought it up.
My question was, is it okay for #CNN to allow a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped on national television, and to let him spend 2 hours spewing constant lies, many of which incite violence on a regular basis.
No its not ok, but not because of CNN making that choice. It isnt ok that he has enough support to be a candidate, it isnt ok because the courts havent stopped him… but this has nothing to do with CNN. Given the not-ok situation we are in (he is a candidate, and he is popular) them treating him like any other candidate and giving him a town hall was the correct decision, because it is not their place to pick our candidates for us.
Your answer included your opinion that Biden is terrible.
It’s fine to have that opinion, but that opinion has absolutely no relevance to my question whatsoever. I invite every reader of this thread to consider what went into the thought process that brought it up.
Entirely relevant to the situation because it shows precedence, it shows that news agencies hosting horrible people who do not deserve to be in the running for president at all still get town halls. It is very relevant to show the past pattern and why precedence is continued.
It is also relevant because it shows how it might feel had they unfairly decided for you who had a voice or not, and used the very sort of logic your using on Trump on Biden, as a way to illustrate how unfair it would be if that same logic was applied to a candidate you more likely support, and who would have been just as justified playing by your logic.
@freemo A very bad take. CNN chose to give him a platform to lie and slander without pushback or fact checking. This is not reporting the news, it's making entertainment by promoting a white supremacy.
@deegeese In townhalls they dont "pushback" or fact check... never have as far as I know.. the format is always typically Q&A without much interference fromt he host.
And yea, an unbias news agency has a moral (and arguably a legal one) to host the front-running political candidates equally. As for white supremacy, would you be ok with them blocking any coverage of Biden ont he basis of his pro-segregation stance in politics? Or would you scream foul if they intentionally black balled him for his extremely racist career?
@deegeese yup, and what aboutism is not a bad thing... that is how you can see your logic being applied to things that arent just helpful for your biases but against your biases and see why its a horrible idea to news agencies deplatform presidential candidates based on their personal judgements (rather than that of a court).
@marchuff We have a court in place for that, which is the proper place to judge his crimes and decide if he can or cant run for president (and id be more than fine with him not being allowed to run)... it is not however CNN's right to decide that for the country, and they made the right decision not to decide that.
@freemo one issue he tried to overthrow the gov. putin puting on opponents? trump got 3 cops killed and 5 other and wounded 140 cops that's the different we putting on charles manson he was at the crime scene. no...trump is waiting to be convicted that's enough not to air him.
Sure, I never claimed trump was a great guy or that any of that isnt true... Buit none of those statements have yet to be proven out in court, and until they are and he is thus barred from running as a candidate then CNN has no business acting as a court and deciding that for themselves and choosing which candidates have a voice or not.
@TruthSandwich Feel free to discuss if you wish, otherwise im not sure your comment has much value without commentary, but people are always welcome to discuss in my comments if you wish so feel free.
Add comment