Yes. And in particular, when you bring on analysts, have them analyze facts, not speculate about things that might be facts. https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1110942260592607237 …
-
-
Experts know facts. That would be the key difference. Network interviewers don’t know the facts so they can’t challenge clown shows. We’ve seen
@crampell effectively do that vs. Stephen Moore. -
I'm generally in favor of more rigor, but of course TV interviewers can never be experts on everything & are thus easily snowed by, say, former CIA directors who claim to be able to project what evidence a non-public investigation has discovered. Hypothetically.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Do you do securities law? (I’m just guessing, don’t know). Would you like to engage somebody like Moore, who would get the statutory and case law wrong, or a liberal legal colleague who could actually engage you on the merits?
-
I regularly engage with people who do this stuff for a living and get the statutory and case law wrong. Being a litigator strips you of a lot of illusions about expertise.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.