Priebus's non-answer

[MikeF]

From an article on Slate:

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Priebus, “Does the president-elect accept the consensus of the intel community?” Priebus answered:

"The real question is why the Democrats and why these electors and why MoveOn.org and all of these organizations are doing everything they can to delegitimize the outcome of the election. … They lost the election because they’re so completely out of touch with the American people that they’re so shell-shocked and they can’t believe it. And what is their response? Recounts, Russians, leaked CIA reports … "

Did Wallace press him on this non-answer? Please tell me he did. Something like, “No, the real question is the one I just asked. Does he or does he not believe the intelligence community?” I will always be amazed by politicians ability to not answer simple, direct questions. And get away with it.

[QuickSilver]

I don’t know about Wallace, but I’ve come to admire both Cuomo on CNN and Todd on Meet The Press for doing just that: “You didn’t answer the question, congressman,” and then ask it again.

Most of the time the person refuses to answer by offering more obfuscation. To which they say, “So you won’t answer the question?” Other times, they actually get them to provide at least a partial answer.

Now that I think about it, I find reporters in general are doing that kind thing more and more. Good for them and we need more of that.

[bobot]

There are 3 people who stand out to me as being annoyingly deliberate and obvious in their non-answers to direct, simple questions. Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway, and Nancy Pelosi.

[Buck_Godot]

The problem is that there is no answer. Trump changes his mind on large important topics on an hourly basis, and then like the Ministry of Truth declares that his mind has never changed and “we have always been at war with Eastasia”. With this in mind, how can Priebus respond to a question about Trumps belief when like as not Trump will make a tweet contradicting it 10 minutes later?

[running_coach]

@bobot

There are 3 people who stand out to me as being annoyingly deliberate and obvious in their non-answers to direct, simple questions. Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway, and Nancy Pelosi.

Sean Spicer. And he gets pissed when he’s called on it.

[k9bfriender]

It is hard to press them too hard for an answer. They are there voluntarily, it’s not like they were summoned to congressional hearing or courtroom or anything.

If they don’t wanna answer, they don’t have to, and pressing them too hard on it will mean that you won’t get those guests to come on your show at all in the future.

It used to matter, because the people would notice that, and think poorly upon a politician that behaved that way. It does seem as though that has changed now. That behavior is now rewarded by the electorate, rather than discouraged.

This is a problem.

[drad_dog]

@k9bfriender

It is hard to press them too hard for an answer. They are there voluntarily, it’s not like they were summoned to congressional hearing or courtroom or anything.

If they don’t wanna answer, they don’t have to, and pressing them too hard on it will mean that you won’t get those guests to come on your show at all in the future.

It used to matter, because the people would notice that, and think poorly upon a politician that behaved that way. It does seem as though that has changed now. That behavior is now rewarded by the electorate, rather than discouraged.

This is a problem.

I think it’s time to start demanding answers or telling them that the interview/free photo op is over.

It means being heads up about preparing and research, having fact checkers, and continuing the story that the principals are lying to the public without these “irreplaceable” guests there. That’s the story and it does not get told by letting them run on.

[k9bfriender]

@drad_dog

I think it’s time to start demanding answers or telling them that the interview/free photo op is over.

It means being heads up about preparing and research, having fact checkers, and continuing the story that the principals are lying to the public without these “irreplaceable” guests there. That’s the story and it does not get told by letting them run on.

I agree with this. One of the (many) reasons Trump did as well as he did is because of all the free air time he got.

If you refuse to come on the show, or refuse to answer the questions asked of you, then it becomes the reporter’s responsibility to inform the public about those people’s positions.

If they do not wish to come on to clarify their positions, that is their choice.

Unfortunately, with so many media outlets available, it’s a bit hard to threaten that too much. They are in a position where the media needs the candidates more than the other way around.

[MikeF]

Interesting to note that k9(bfriender) described the tail wagging the dog

“They are in a position where the media needs the candidates more than the other way around.” This is a very bad thing, indeed.

I wonder if there is a way to make money in the media with evenhanded reporting and not sucking up to one side or the other. Probably not.

[Superdude]

@QuickSilver

I don’t know about Wallace, but I’ve come to admire both Cuomo on CNN and Todd on Meet The Press for doing just that: “You didn’t answer the question, congressman,” and then ask it again.

Most of the time the person refuses to answer by offering more obfuscation. To which they say, “So you won’t answer the question?” Other times, they actually get them to provide at least a partial answer.

Now that I think about it, I find reporters in general are doing that kind thing more and more. Good for them and we need more of that.

Megyn Kelly has started doing that, as well. I don’t watch a lot of Fox News, but she’s been a lot more willing to hold someone’s feet to the fire during this past campaign season.

[Sherrerd]

@MikeF

… I wonder if there is a way to make money in the media with evenhanded reporting and not sucking up to one side or the other. Probably not.

This is purely anecdotal, but I always noticed that Bill Moyers’ shows on PBS had extremely lengthy lists of individual sponsors (as opposed to corporations). My impression is that there were masses of people watching his show and saying to themselves ‘I have GOT to support this’–and then sending in checks.

I’m not trying to nominate Moyers for sainthood, but he did have a reputation for avoiding the ‘let’s goose up this aspect because it will attract more viewers’ type of story. Though maybe that is sainthood in today’s media market.

So maybe the only way to (as you say) make money in the media with evenhanded reporting, involves PBS, NPR, and individual listeners/viewers who will send in their checks. Because the cable news shows are gauging second-by-second the number of sets tuned to their shows. MSNBC decides not to show* the pledging-to-ISIS video of the Berlin truck killer out of principle? And now people are defecting in droves to CNN, which IS showing the video? Then MSNBC’s principle must be shit-canned…and so on.

*The MSNBC ‘we won’t show it’ thing happened today. I don’t have a citation as I can’t find anyone talking about it or acknowledging it yet. Maybe tomorrow something will show up.