Dunno how to feel about this. Seems a little late to stop feeding the troll. The guy is a compulsive liar–that’s not an opinion, it is a remarkably verifiable fact, regrettably. Is it unreasonable to expect NEWS outlets to at least try to deliver something that looks like the truth? If so, how much sense does it make to place that seal of approval on what a reasonable person can only expect will be a barrage of lies to terrify the easily deceived and to further a political aim?
On the other hand, something is brewing, and don’t NEWS outlets have an obligation to present the major goings on of society?
Maybe they can broadcast him on a 20 minute delay, so the fact checkers can research what he says and update the scrolling banner beneath his mug as he says what he wants to say? Seems like a fair compromise.
Seems like it would simply be ceding the airtime entirely to networks like FOX, who would benefit from being the sole airers of it. Furthermore, announcing that “We won’t cover Trump’s speech on such-and-such-a-day” would have a Streisand Effect, perhaps getting more people to view it than otherwise.
Take what less seriously? The verifiable fact that the POTUS is a belligerent and compulsive liar whose only real goal at this point is saving face? The fact that his being a noncredible source of information is at odds with presenting credible stories about our world? Something else I’m missing?
But yeah, not broadcasting it at all is ultimately the worse idea.
Politicians and all of their blusterings in general. All the fretting and bellyaching just plays into their inflated sense of self-worth and overall self aggrandizement.
Fortunately, our political system is still such that the words and actions of the President have very little to no affect on our daily lives.
Oh they should agree to do this. His lies should be pointed out in as real time as possible. And if/when he doesn’t show up, they should broadcast a live feed of a chair with an empty suit draped over it.
You really should read your own link before citing it.
“A source at one of the major networks told The Hill that the White House did not officially request prime-time coverage on the network…”
A major speech by the President should be covered by the networks. The government shutdown effects a lot of people and the nation should hear from our President.
The democrats should be given air time to offer their counter argument.
I think the networks should carve out some time for themselves to state the FACTS that thump will have lied about. Because he will lie. We all know that, going into this. He won’t just say dumb, stupid, demented stuff, he will tell lies.
Giving the Dems equal time isn’t really wholly appropriate, because this isn’t a situation where a representative of one party is stating a position that the other party should have the opportunity to rebut. We’re not talking about countering whatever thump says with the opinions, position, or stance of the other side. Thump is going to LIE, to say things that aren’t true, to claim that some things are facts that are simply NOT. If the Dems disagree, that can and will be claimed by the Pubs as being partisan.
Someone needs to present facts and truth. If thump comes out and says, “Other presidents have said they wish they had built a wall,” someone besides Nancy Pelosi needs to say that is simply not true.
I read it. Not only that, I remember when it happened. The networks didn’t run the speech because the networks didn’t want to run the speech. The White House didn’t make an official request because they had already been given the word unofficially.
Yes, they should air his speech. For good or bad, Donald Trump is the President of the United States. The things he says matter, even if they’re lies or insults or childish tantrums or displays of ignorance. It’s newsworthy and the networks have an obligation to report the news.
After his speech is over, the networks also have the duty to report if anything he says is factually incorrect.