(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



MEMO to whoever interviews Trump next: [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-05-11

Great thread (yes, on Twitter — apologies) on the CNN debacle last night, and why it was doomed from the start —

x 1. One thing last night made clear is that not only doesn't "fact-checking in real time" work on Trump, it's actually JUST WHAT HE WANTS. Allow me to explain... — Paul Waldman (@paulwaldman1) May 11, 2023

This read is exactly right, notably mid-thread when we get to the crux of the issue:

x 3. The conflict, and his bullying of the journalist, is the essence of the performance. It says "We will create our own reality. You have no power over us. And the more frustrated you get, the more we win." — Paul Waldman (@paulwaldman1) May 11, 2023

Yes — this obviously true. It’s performative. Like the “business empire,” like the reality TV show, like the presidency, and all the rest — it’s an act. And money is always involved.

I do have one key reaction though — I don’t think the right conclusion to draw from this is that putting Trump on TV is always destined to be a disaster, or that no self-respecting journalist should ever interview him again (to be clear, this is not a conclusion Mr. Waldman reaches, but others frequently do). I think instead it should merely point to a shift in objectives that an interviewer should consider in a future encounter with Trump (or a debate competitor, etc.).

Mr. Waldman is right in saying that there’s no point in trying to fact-check him, because he bowls you over, changes the subject, repeats his lies, and puffs out his chest as you clutch your pearls at his bravado. But this behavior presumes that the journalist is frustrated because they have so many more points to get to: I, the journalist, was looking forward to moving on to inflation, but we can’t even agree on the basics, like whether or not you created jobs or not, or whether or not the US should pay its past bills! How can we build toward deeper topics of conversation — like I do in other interviews — if you refuse to acknowledge these fundamental truths?

This “desire to move on” in the interview is the mistake. Trump is not a normal interview. And if you really want to “make news” — not that that’s your job, memo to CNN — you have to do it differently.

How?

Stop trying to move on. You can’t do it. Slow down, and dig in, and unpack it. The entire “flood the zone” approach presumes that you have 17 topics on your list, and you are committed to hitting 14 of them, and that won’t leave time to fully expose the silliness of Trump’s misconceptions, conspiracy theories, and flat-out lying on any single one. So forget about that — plan to hit 2 or 3 topics at most! Fight “flood the zone” with “challenge everything.” When the lies begin, pick one, dig into it. Why do you believe that? Where did you hear that? Why don’t you believe [reputable source] who says that’s incorrect? So you just personally believe something else? What makes you think you know better than [reputable source] here? What about [fact], [fact], and [fact]?

He’ll keep waiting for you to change the subject — for his nuggets to get old. What if you … didn’t? What if you kept after it? He’d be confused. My guess is, he’d change the subject — “Well it’s just like the border — look at the border — Biden is [lies, lies, lies]...” or some other tangent. The temptation would then be to follow him over to that topic, to those new lies, and push back again. Don’t take the bait! Stay where you are — “Well I’m not sure any of that is accurate, but I want to stay on inflation — are you saying that… [back to the earlier issue].”

Trump knows how normal interviews work. So don’t be a normal interviewer!

Now, to be clear: this might make for some bad television! Most folks will tune in expecting you to cover that wide swath of topics and cover some ground. Too bad. Keep after it — like a dog with a bone. See what happens.

NOTE: the only journalist I’ve really seen do this well (though I’m sure there are others) is Jon Stewart. Whatever you make of his overall style or politics, some of his recent interviews showcases this technique fairly effectively. Lots of examples of him doing this, but here’s a good primer:

“Well, you know that’s not true.” (calmly)

“Who told you that?”

”What experts?”

“From what organizations?”

“I have some bad news for you.”

“So, I’m confused — “

Jon is excellent at really listening, using an interviewee’s words against him/her, and making them own their words and statements. He also clearly does his homework, and won’t let you get away with random lies. We need more like him. The news organization that gets Donald Trump to sit down for an hour with Jon Stewart has my undying love; getting those two together would be the most entertaining and revealing television in a long long time.

But until then — journalists, interviewers — do yourself a favor. Treat Trump differently. Treat interview prep differently. He’s a master at dictating the terms of his time in front of cameras. Don’t be another victim.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/11/2168785/-MEMO-to-whoever-interviews-Trump-next

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/