Republicans, Stop Expecting Good-Faith Debates With The Media
The article discusses the challenges faced by Republicans, specifically during media interviews with outlets like CNN and MSNBC, particularly in the context of discussing Vice President Kamala Harris. The author argues that these interviews are not genuine dialogues but rather biased platforms where the anchors defend Democratic positions.
An example is provided involving CNN anchor John Berman and Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, where Berman refutes Leavitt’s claims about Harris’s lack of credibility on immigration. The author criticizes the Republican strategy of engaging in back-and-forth arguments about facts when, according to them, the media’s framing is inherently supportive of Harris.
Instead, the author suggests two alternative strategies for Republicans: first, to challenge the anchors and force them to substantiate their claims, as exemplified by Senator Tom Cotton’s effective responses to ABC’s Jonathan Karl. The second strategy is to confront the media’s bias directly, recognizing the anchor’s role in promoting the Democratic agenda, thereby allowing Republicans to communicate their points more effectively. the commentary emphasizes the need for Republicans to adjust their approach to media interactions.
Between now and Election Day there is something Republicans and Trump’s media surrogates have got to understand: When you go on CNN, MSNBC, and the like, it is not an interview and it is not a debate. Stop trying to interview and stop trying to debate.
There is no interview and there is no debate if the anchor will inevitably and invariably lie on behalf of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign. That predictable dynamic played out perfectly on CNN last week in a segment featuring anchor John Berman and Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
Asked by a perky Berman to “explain” why voters supposedly see Kamala “as perhaps the candidate of change,” Leavitt offered a fine answer. She said Kamala can’t credibly be a “change” candidate because she’s currently in the White House and is “wholly responsible for the failures over the past four years.”
So far so good. Leavitt went on to say Kamala “was named the border czar,” thus making her responsible for the appalling migrant crisis we’ve all been forced to suffer through, and and added that former President Trump “secured the border [and] unleashed the might of our energy industry.”
That was Berman’s cue. “There’s more domestic energy production right now than there’s ever been in U.S. history,” he said with great pride. “And Kamala Harris was not the border czar, she was appointed to deal with the Northern Triangle.”
Leavitt offered a not-bad rebuttal, correctly noting that gas and energy prices are exponentially higher under the Kamala-Biden administration (along with the price of everything else, I’ll add) and that Kamala was, in fact, appointed by her teammate Joe Biden to oversee the border collapse that they initiated together.
So Berman went to bat for Kamala again. “She was not appointed the border czar,” he repeated, “she was appointed to deal with the Northern Triangle.”
Leavitt did a fine job engaging the dork, but the mentality of Republicans heading into these affairs is all wrong. There is no point in getting into a back-and-forth on the merits of an issue with Berman — or any of his peers. Kamala was indisputably placed in charge of stemming immigration across the border, and whatever she did, whatever they want to call it, however they want to describe it, she failed.
A conversation of “Yes, she was,” “No, she wasn’t” is useless and a wasted opportunity. Instead, there are two options for taking advantage of these little shows:
One is to force the trifling anchor to fully expose himself as a Democrat surrogate by demanding he explain and defend his counterpoint.
Senator Tom Cotton did this expertly in a recent interview with ABC’s Jonathan “Milhouse” Karl. When Karl attempted to run interference for Kamala by insisting Kamala no longer supports every godawful policy she professed to support and even aided in implementing as vice president, Cotton challenged Karl to show his math. “How do you know that’s not her position?” said Cotton in a way that kind of turns me on. “How do you know that’s not her position? She has not said that. She has not said that. She has not said that.”
Tom Cotton applies the number one rule when dealing with the press in this clip: Never accept their false premises.
Karl insists Harris has changed her position on eliminating private health insurance, and Cotton takes him to the cleaners. pic.twitter.com/Ylq37mDRIw
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 25, 2024
Karl went on to say on behalf of the Kamala campaign that the vice president is “clearly making an effort to move to the middle,” revealing whom he supports in this race and whom he believes needs help across the finish line.
At that point, Republicans, you can proceed to acknowledge that the anchor is here to assist Kamala, nothing more, and you can continue to make the points you want.
The second option is to aggressively confront every rebuttal sputtered by the anchor because the media collectively and individually have proven themselves to be irredeemable liars and fiends. Say so. They deserve it. The voters are on your side when you do.
There is no self-accountability among the media for their endless deceit and malicious conduct. The accountability is you, elected Republican, who gets to speak to them to their faces and ask them what the rest of us wish we could.
Why are you defending her?
Why are you speaking for her?
Why are you letting Kamala and the Democrats dictate your coverage?
Why are you trying to debate on their behalf?
If you want a debate, host one and demand that she be here to answer for herself, rather than you answering for her.
Why do you accept that Kamala has abandoned every major position she held until two months ago, positions she has attempted to disown without any feasible explanation? Why is that acceptable to you?
Why are you repeating her campaign’s lies, which you know are false, and which you refuse to “fact-check”?
Why do you apologize for her campaigners’ lies when they’re not here and then get snippy with me for rebutting them, even though I did you the courtesy of showing up while they refuse to answer your calls?
Don’t let them get away with their dishonesty. Stop assuming or hoping that they’ll be nice to you, or even just fair. They won’t.
Republicans, you’re not going to best the anchor on the facts, because the anchors aren’t conceding any facts. The best you can do is beat them into submission.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
