CNN Town Hall with Donald Trump: May 10, 2023

I honestly think his take – though maybe more measured than most of us would have liked – spoke to that:

Could he/should he have drilled down on this part, and excoriated CNN for the deal they made? Sure. Maybe. But this was on the Friday eve PBS Newshour and he didn’t have a lot of time to expound.

I tend to think he’s a pretty reasonable guy, and – at least personally – I read a lot into that snippet I quoted above. I think it was David Brooks-speak for “part clusterfuck, part shit-show.” And – having watched Brooks for years – I think it’s safe to say that Brooks views Trump with disdain, disgust, loathing, derision, and contempt.

He’s just a bit too measured to spew it forth in the words we’d all love to hear :wink:

Given the number of people who warned them that it was a bad idea, and why it was a bad idea, before the event, they don’t get that pass.

IMHO, I’ll share part of the complaint message I sent to CNN after the town hall.

“CNN has long been a news company. This event showed that you are putting the ‘company’ ahead of the ‘news’. Which may earn you new clicks, but it will cost you mine, and I am not alone in this feeling.”

I’ve long preferred NPR for a more detailed news source, and use BBC when possible, but CNN always had a larger volume of US and breaking news that either other source. For that matter Reuters/AP has always been a huge mix of timely vs untimely with quality running the gamut of great to garbage.

But CNN’s actions to me are just what I shared. They are even more aggressively chasing the clicks, trying to attract fallen Fox users while (IMHO) still using outrage to drive up the moderate/progressive existing audience. And it may work. But it’s so damn cynical and manipulative that I choose not to tolerate it.

YMMV.

Fingers crossed that this gets added to his legal problems:

To me, it was the best part of the whole debacle. Proof of intent is often hard to come by in cases like the Mar-A-Lago documents case. Trump served it up on a silver platter for Jack Smith.

Not that Smith didn’t already have plenty of proof, but there’s nothing like someone’s own words captured on video for a jury’s consideration.

Shoulda coulda woulda, and probably did do exactly that-but you know the saying about leading a horse to water.

I don’t have the stomach to try to read through a transcript for it but didn’t Trump say something about the Jan 6th planning that implicated himself via putting a qualifier in there? He said something like he “wasn’t very involved” or “wasn’t really involved in the planning”. Oh, so you were involved then? I’m pretty sure there is plenty of precedent for someone who was not really or very involved in a crime to still have to face the full weight of it.

I think Jon Stewart’s main point aligns with mine (above):

“Dear TV,” Stewart wrote on Twitter Saturday morning. “The problem w the Trump Town Hall wasn’t platforming…or a fragile siloed audience unable to be exposed to newsworthy opinions antithetical to their own…the problem was an event that was clearly negotiated to Trump’s approval. An ode to access.”

It really depends on who “them” and “they” refers to. From the way Chris Licht was defending this fiasco, against all evidence and the complaints of his own senior journalists, I suspect this was his own pet idea. And it may well have been part of his strategy to transform CNN to appeal to a bigger audience.

If so, this doesn’t preclude stupidity – it confirms it. The idea is idiotic. You’re not going to grow your audience by being “nice” to an irredeemably corrupt psychopath like Trump. You’re not going to grow your audience by trying to be more “non-partisan” – MAGAts don’t want news that’s soft on Trump, they don’t want news at all – they want the fantasies of Trumpland. That’s why they watch Fox News.

My advice to Chris Licht and his minions – or whoever ends up running the place when he’s fired – is that CNN should just do its job. That job is journalism, and it’s a critically important one because American democracy depends on it. Will that get you a vast audience? No, not in the present nation filled with Fox-News-watching morons. But it will get you the respect of thinking people, it will attract good journalists and anchors, and it may even save your country. Because your country needs saving, and you’re one of the big forces to do it. So stop trying to fine-tune your political image. There’s no political image in journalism, there’s only the perennially essential quest for objective truth.

That is all wonderful advice. I love it and wish it would work. And it’s mostly wrong. CNN is obviously a media company. Assume that I’m the boss and explain to me how journalism makes money. They saw the huge bucks and influence FOX got from playing patty-cake with the Ex-President and naturally want to replicate that.

I agree that they’re doing no favors by pussyfooting around it if they want MAGAbucks, but it’s not like the liberal side is overflowing in cash right now ( or ever).

Whether it’s “wrong” depends on the scope of the context you want to look at. I am absolutely under no illusions that I could convince Chris Licht to follow this advice, and nor could anybody else. But the problem runs much, much deeper than just Licht and CNN. But, just for starters, CNN is neither privately held nor publicly traded; the former might potentially give it substantial autonomy, the latter a more constrained kind. But instead, CNN is owned by a gigantic media conglomerate, and is regarded by its corporate owners as just another media company expected to contribute its fair share to the profits of the conglomerate. Chris Licht’s job is to deliver on that expectation. To make matters worse, despite his educational background in journalism, some of his comments in defense of this farcical “town hall” suggest that he either doesn’t understand what journalism is, or that he doesn’t care because all his bosses care about is profits, and therefore so does he.

Which brings us to the much deeper problem. News in US media has always been plagued by the bias of commercialism, profit-seeking, and sponsor appeasement. But with the advent of Fox News – and more recently, Trumpism – mere sensationalism, shallowness, and commercial bias is being augmented by the even worse phenomenon of mass-media disinformation. Meaning known flat-out lies – total bullshit – being disseminated as “news” because it brings in viewers/listeners, advertisers, and profits.

This has created a nation heavily populated with ignoramuses, precipitating a race to the bottom in pursuit of the most profits to be gained by catering to the largest demographic of idiots. Which is exactly what Fox News excels at, and is what I fear might be happening with CNN under Licht, albeit in much more nuanced ways.

One of the primary ways (not the only way) that other industrialized countries have avoided this trap is through relatively generous funding of public broadcasting. I’m sure there are many here who love PBS and NPR, and I do, too, but take a look at the chart below. The per-capita funding for public broadcasting in the US is so pathetically small that it can basically be rounded down to zero. And Republicans would like to shut it down completely (I wonder why?). And as we so often hear, a large swath of the nation are Trump supporters – by golly, many of our friends and neighbours, co-workers, and even our own family members might be Trumpists. Again, no real need to wonder why. The chart below offers part of the explanation, and if CNN completely goes to shit (it’s already about three-quarters of the way there) that will be another part.

From the story I linked above there is this:

“I had in mind the way CNN’s fake town hall gave Trump a platform to praise the insurrectionists as ‘great people’; to pledge that he would pardon ‘a large portion’ of them who are serving time; and to make clear that he fully intended the violent attack on the Capitol and on Mike Pence that his remarks incited, refusing to express regret even for having endangered his vice president’s very life,” Tribe told Newsweek via email Friday.

“Those remarks filled any remaining gaps in the proof of Trump’s intent to foment what the law defines as an insurrection,” he added. “In addition, Trump’s admission that he wanted to exploit Pence’s role by working with the fake electors and his lawyers to prevent the electoral votes actually cast on December 14 [2020] from being counted amounts to a confession of seditious conspiracy in the form of an attempted coup.” - SOURCE

So, it seems this shows intent. Whether a court will agree I am unsure.

While I would certainly never try to compare my own chops to guys like Tribe and Kirschner, who I’m sure spit out more brains than I have every time they brush their teeth, I think it would be wise to look at their track records when it comes to making proclamations about what consequences are about to befall Trump. They’re basically just expert witnesses for the MSNBC/NYT crowds, using their CVs to bolster the narratives that people want to hear.

It is not at all hard to see how ol’ Trump is going to wriggle out of admitting that he wanted Pence not to certify the vote. Everyone knows he wanted that. Calling it a “confession of seditious conspiracy” is just vamping. If you already think Trump was doing a seditious conspiracy, then of course everything he says about it sounds like that to you, because it’s more of what you already believe. But that is far from him confessing anything new and interesting.

The Kirschner stuff, having clicked through to find it, is even thinner:

During one moment in the broadcast, Collins asked Trump if he had shown the classified documents that he kept after his presidency “to anyone.”

Trump responded by saying “not really” and “not that I can think of,” while wrongly claiming that he would have had “the absolute right to do whatever I want with them.”

and

The former prosecutor then turned his attention to Trump incorrectly claiming that he never asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes that would help him overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

“We’ve all heard that recorded phone call on an endless loop—when Trump is pressuring Brad Raffensperger to find 11,780 votes,” said Kirschner. “I predict this incriminating statement will be introduced in the future criminal trial captioned Georgia versus Donald J. Trump.”

What I see there is two denials that are being treated as confessions because Kirschner thinks the truth is different from what Trump is saying. Which, I mean, me too. But that’s not how incriminating statements work.

I’m not a fan so I’m sure that’s part of it. I think “measuring” is one thing, not saying anything even tending in that direction is another. He said no, it wasn’t a bad idea, and defended the media. One would think a guy who has been offering opinions as a job for 40 years could have found time for any amount of criticism at all, if he thought there was something worth criticizing.

The denials aren’t what’s incriminating. It’s the facts that are the problem.

I think you’ll find that is also what I am saying.

I’m pretty sure Trump won’t be indicted for insurrection, as the penalty for insurrection of course includes disqualification from office. Our prosecutors respect democracy too much to make that charge.

If I am wrong, and he is indicted for insurrection, some court might well agree. But the Supreme Court would not. This is another reason why a normal prosecutor wouldn’t indict him for insurrection. Normal prosecutors like cases they have a chance of winning.

The more I read about alternatives to the CNN approach, the more I’m OK with it. The town hall showed a lot of what’s wrong with Trump, and then the voters can decide.

In my most deeply cynical moments, I start to wonder if democracy was really such a good idea….

My concern with this is that, with the exception of a few folks like Spoons, no reasonable people watched it because it was almost unwatchable. I tried to watch it, in chunks, but it was intolerable and I maybe watched ten minutes total.

And what ZipperJJ said upthread (excerpt below) rings true to me. At this point I assume that everybody has informed themselves as much as they are prepared to and the ignorant, anti-science, anti-critical thinking, deplorables will never change, and the rest of us already know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how bad he is and how bad the overall situation is because of him.

Well, I know, without any wondering, what DJT thinks of democracy. That’s because of his many times repeated positive statements about third terms and presidency for life.

I found this Matt Yglesias article in my in-box, this morning, suggesting that maybe it isn’t worthwhile to complain so much, as I certainly do, about Trump being against democracy:

Instead he seems to advise, if only from a tactical standpoint, saying that the GOP is the party of the rich:

My problem with the above is that I am really sure democracy is better than all the other systems, and not at all sure what tax policy is best (although I am certain that DJT should pay more).

If it weren’t for one of the democracy limiters built into the system, we’d be in the middle of the second Hillary Clinton term.