While I’m always on the lookout for it, I have never seen a news article - print or electronic - that was built around a journalist asking an election-denying candidate for his evidence that the election was stolen. I can’t help but feel that such an interview would turn out to be quite edifying. Or a series of interviews. 60 minutes or Frontline would be a perfect venue for a series of interviews in which the candidates claim the election was stolen but cannot respond to the incessant questioning of a good reporter. I understand that there are people who don’t care about the facts and believe what they want, but I’d at least like to think that members of the press still see their jobs as acting on behalf of the public. So - why don’t they go after these people? There are literally hundreds of them running.
My strong suspicion is that election-denying candidates would be unwilling to agree to such an interview. You can’t force a Ron Johnson or a Marjorie Taylor Greene to sit down with an actual investigative interviewer – any “interviews” they are likely to give are either going to be drive-by questions from reporters who chase them down on Capitol Hill, or conducted by “friendly” media sources, which aren’t going to ask them tough questions.
I have seen attempts at this though. The response is that there are “legitimate concerns”, and when pressed on what specific evidence, they just say that further investigation is needed.
Here’s Jim Acosta making a valiant attempt to press the point to Chad Wolf and it’s exhausting to watch.
Below is a clip of a reporter trying to drill down the fraud being alleged by Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake. Her reply is basically: “I won’t tell you. You’re biased news.”
(Literally “The last person on planet earth that I would tell about what we discovered is you and MSDNC [sic]”)
It’s ridiculously childish. As is a significant plurality of the electorate.
A skilled political hack can dodge inconvenient questions about the “stolen election” by constantly interrupting and Gish-galloping, as Mo Brooks (R-Jackass) does in the linked video clip (when interviewed by a Fox News anchor, no less).
^ This is the answer.
Jordan Klepper tries to ask some questions of Mike Lindell about the election (take a guess at how it goes) - granted Jordan is not an investigative reporter, and Mr. Lindell is not a candidate for office:
I think that’s most of your answer – it’s exhausting, and who wants to watch that? One look at Chad Wolf’s face and I knew he was going to stonewall for all he was worth (I couldn’t tell whether he would be any good at it though).
Another problem is, the interviewer is going to ask for evidence, the interviewee is going to point to a bunch of bogus sources (because there are tons of them) and all the interviewer can say is some flavor of “but that’s not a valid source.” Then the interviewer is suddenly in the position of having to prove that it’s not a valid source. Maybe there are tactics to get around that, but it’s a big stumbling block to a meaningful interview.
Another common response is that the evidence was already provided and yet the media ignores it.
Yes, all an election-denier needs is the ability to look an interviewer in the eye and lie. And these people find telling a lie easier than telling the truth. They can just say “I have seen videotapes of Democrats throwing out Republican votes in five different states.” It may be a complete lie. The person saying it knows it’s a lie. The interviewer knows it’s a lie.
But what’s tomorrow story? It’s not about the candidate getting caught in a lie. It’s about the Democrats throwing out Republican votes. The lie becomes the story.
I don’t watch TV, but I read newspapers, and mainstream media, including the most mainstream of all, the Associated Press, routinely follow up quotation of election-denying statements by stating that the claims are false.
Given that, if AP pressed for evidence, they would be asking the interviewee to lie some more.
I wonder if asking for evidence, of what you know for a fact isn’t true, might be an example of bad faith interviewing…
,
So liars win, either their lies go unchallenged in interviews, or their lies get even more widespread than before?
A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
- attributed to quite a few people
I invented the phrase though, back in ‘92.
Yes. Just like that. Even when these people answer questions with lies they don’t get called out. The interviewers won’t go further than using terms like ‘misleading’ when the subjects are lying outright. The talking heads aren’t competent enough to do it anyway. Of course if you take down one of these liars in an interview you’ll never get another one with any of them. They don’t need to take the chance of a hostile interview when they have so many media outlets to lie to their fellow travelers.
This might be the perfect thread to link this piece of inside baseball view of the “journalism” practiced by the right. I have not read Tim Miller’s book yet, but he does give a good interview:
Along similar lines as the OP, I’ve often wondered if, whenever possible, democratic politicians couldn’t put every democrat statement or answer to reporters in the context of a relevant GOP lie.
Not really useful to help broadcast their lies.
It’s ironic, because Republicans, Trumpists in particular, constantly denounce the “mainstream media” as being liars.
When the truth is, the mainstream media in the US does have a problem, but it’s that is is often too weak at calling out lies.
When American politicians get interviewed by British or Australian journalists, say, the wall of bullshit suddenly doesn’t look so strong. Because they don’t need to do the faux politeness thing, and also the interviewer can ask exactly the same question over and over if no clear answer has been forthcoming.
Now, in fairness to American journalists, there is something in American culture that has always been suspicious of the media, long before Trump came on the scene. So this is why they have often felt they needed to walk on eggshells. (and, in fairness to Trump, he was smart to leverage this cultural perception)
And also, things are changing, slowly. Acosta was well-prepared for Chad Wolf’s BS, and did as good a job as is possible within the confines of typical American interview structure. e.g. To any neutral viewer, the “Biden is the president” thing was an extremely obvious and prepared dodge to the clear questions about the election and Acosta was ready for that.
So long as a significant percentage of the electorate doesn’t care about being lied to, yes. Lying is easy, and if it works, unethical politicians will use it. Trump built his entire presidency on this.
I could were it were otherwise, but it’s not.
Liars often lose. Trump lost despite his lies to the contrary.
But defeating a liar isn’t accomplished by confronting them in an interview and hoping they will break down and tell the truth. Real life doesn’t work like a movie.
A dishonest politician will tell lies. Good journalists will report that what the dishonest politician said were lies. Intelligent people will be aware of what’s going on and will realize the journalists are more credible than the politician. Unintelligent people will just listen to the politician, believe his lies, and vote for him. In most elections, the intelligent people outnumber the unintelligent people.