“That’s why I wanted to ask the broader question, which is, if you’ve changed your position on X, Y and Z, how can you assure voters that those positions won’t change again once they elect you?”
What a moronic concept. Why would anyone demand that their elected representative be monolithic in their positions? When you get new information, you sometimes need to adjust your positions to accommodate reality, but I guess that something the Republicans have never really been good at.
I think most people want the candidates they vote for to enact the same policies that they run for. Ain’t nobody voting for somebody going like “I’m voting for this guy based on what he says about foreign affairs, I really hope he changes his mind when he’s in office”.
Not like changing your position or your mind or your policies aren’t entirely unreasonable. Trump never got us out of Afghanistan, and Biden never got rid of cancer. However, you shouldn’t make promises you can’t keep. Making contradictory promises over the past five or ten years merits negative marks in that department.
It’s fox, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but this is a journalist, talking about another journalist’s response to a different journalist’s interview skills. This is not news, it’s cyclical punditry at its worst.
Are you mad that Dana said this? Or that Fox News mentioned that she said this? It’s hard to tell what your critique of the article is.
Fair question. I’m bothered that this is a story at all. Journalists should never be the subject of the story unless they’ve done something wild and newsworthy, and this article is about a journalist’s opinion about another journalist interviewing a different journalist about their interview. It’s meaningless punditry about other pundits.
My issue with this take is that this is a journalist providing political analysis. I’m not sure why political analysis shouldn’t be considered news to some degree. There was a similar article posted here about a pollster saying support for Trump has dried up: https://lemmy.world/post/19677605, and there are a bunch of articles here about celebrity support for Harris. I think Dana Bash saying something about Kamala Harris is equally newsworthy.
If it was a political scientist or some respected analyst, sure, I’d agree. But I have trouble seeing this as analysis when it’s a journalist being interviewed about what they think viewers should take away from a different interview they did. Interviews speak for themselves, that’s the whole point. We can be critical of the forcefulness of the journalist, of course, but Bash’s take on how she thinks the interview went and what viewers should think about Harris’ responses is not worthy of a whole news article, and is a good example of the rot in corporate media, in my opinion.
“I tried. I mean, you can’t force somebody to answer a question, and I asked to follow up. I tried to get more into the nitty-gritty and get the answer. Sometimes, in my experience in doing interviews, is that once you ask once, fine. Twice, fine. Three times, if you don’t get a clear answer, that’s kind of your answer,” Bash responded.
What does that actually add to our political discourse? It’s not some brilliant political analysis. Her answer, if she really needs to say anything, should just be “watch the interview, it speaks for itself.”
Fox News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Fox News:
MBFC: Questionable - Credibility: Low - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
