I think if people only saw the story, these criticisms would not be nearly so prevelant. But, when people see the transcript, they want to take each question apart in a way that misses the dance that is any interview, let alone one with Trump.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I don’t mind a few random unscripted interviews like this, where we find out what Trump is actually thinking about the topics of the day in a way that provides a more broad framing than just what Fox News is covering on a given day.
Show this thread -
Yes, you could shut down every interview with Trump and become a hero to many by confronting him about every lie he tells, getting him mad, and watching him walk away. But, when he’s holed up like this, it seems beneficial to find out what he’s actually thinking about.
Show this thread -
Would I have handled every question how
@nytmike did? No. But, I think he got us a lot of information — out of what sounds like was a totally unprepped interview that happened on basically no notice. So, kudos to him.Show this thread -
I get that people wanted more follow-up (I’m reading the replies), and so would have I. But (1) this isn’t a complete transcript, and (2) I think it’s just wrong to call this stenography. You might not like his way of dancing, but it was a dance. He did push on some things.
Show this thread -
There’s also this weird idea in this criticism that this interview stands alone, on a pedestal, away from the world. It does not! It is one piece of a 1000 things that will be seen by millions before 5p Friday. People will write about each thing Trump said, and contextualize it.
Show this thread -
So, let them! And I’m grateful to the NYT for quickly putting out at least a partial transcript of the interview to allow other reporters who specialize in each area to look into those comments and write about them. This is a good thing.
Show this thread -
Some fair pushback from a key “Trump’s lies” corrector,
@ddale8, in this thread:https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/946595543823933440 …Show this thread -
Ultimately, I think Schmidt could have pushed back a little harder, but he was in a very tough situation: no-notice interview of uncertain length. Also: NYT is right to provide transcripts ASAP for all to use, but Dale is right they should quickly highlight all the lies within.
Show this thread -
Those are my thoughts, and I appreciate all who have chatted with me about them! (See? Civility!)
Show this thread -
OK, I’m really going to bed now. Thanks to everyone who cares so much about this. That’s a good thing! And it is fine that people disagree. That happens! Everyone can do, and be, better. But, it’s best to get some sleep first, then we can take on another day.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Seems reasonable to ask why he appeared to be egging Trump on to reopen FBI case into Hillary as well as saying things like “that makes a lot of sense” to things which made zero sense.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then isn’t it pretty much propaganda? He gets to lob opinions and lies without any pushback. When there are lies and massive holes in his facts, how does that serve the reader, the audience, if it goes unchecked or unremarked?
-
No, what was revealed here psychologically more valuable, if more sophisticated. A lot of people may not get it, but revealing this much may be a gift to those who actually deal with him. Quick righteous fixes make good movies but real life something else.
-
I get that; valid points for sure. But it didn’t make us any more privy to his psyche; if he was known for speaking honestly, it’d be 1 thing. It was more of the same, typical bombast and lies, in a scenario where they could have been called out. .
-
My point was while it didn’t make the average citizen privy to his psyche it yielded a lot for actual mental health professionals, you can bet that a lot of people around him, military and otherwise are having private discussions with psychiatrists re just how demented he is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like the way you put this, fair to ask questions but it is also valuable if this is all he is likely to do. Holt interview was the last of its kind and a long time ago
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don’t care about political affiliation. I have the utmost respect for journalists. Worked in newspapers for 10 yrs. I’d like all journalists, especially NYT, to not just be stenographers. If anyone continues to lie unabated, it’s the reporter’s responsibility to challenge.
-
Isn’t it his political opponents job to challenge? Reporters should report his lies as such, but stopping him from lying is 1. Impossible and 2. Doesn’t seem to be their job.
-
A journalist’s main concern is always truth, through verification & corroboration. If a journalist clearly knows a person is lying, I’d like the journalist to follow up with questions that challenge the person to prove, with facts, their position. No just blindly print anything
End of conversation
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.