The Trump/Axios Angle For This Board...

[Joe Hass]

"“Oh my god it’s just like VEEP!” I shouted as I plunged to my death." - Billy Eichner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2020/08/04/veep-trump-axios-interview-jonathan-swan-david-mandel/

[Kevin M.]

There’s a viral video where the audio has been replaced by Python’s Dead Parrot sketch. Brilliant. 

As for the original, while I typically try to avoid the actual words of Trump, this interview was helpful in seeing how he was coming up with his phony numbers. As the interviewer was pointing to the number of Covid deaths based on population, and Trump literally told him “you can’t do that,” I finally understood the exact point of Trump’s disconnect from reality. The lack of even a toddler’s level of deductive reasoning from Trump is astonishing. CNN chose to focus on the insensitivity of “it is what it is,” and I understand why (because it’s easier and the outrage is more sensationalistic), but pointing out that the commander in chief refuses to allow others (let alone himself) to focus on the numbers which are critical to fully understanding the seriousness of this virus is a more lofty goal for the media. 

That said, this wasn’t an especially good interview... it’s just that the people who typically interview Trump are so bad at even basic follow-up questions or on-the-spot fact checking that it appears to be a great interview. 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:08 PM Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

"“Oh my god it’s just like VEEP!” I shouted as I plunged to my death." - Billy Eichner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2020/08/04/veep-trump-axios-interview-jonathan-swan-david-mandel/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BdKPYZvNmRyg2rKq9TuXbBR6GWvwjWQqyM73reyuEMxEA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jon Delfin]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

That said, this wasn’t an especially good interview... it’s just that the people who typically interview Trump are so bad at even basic follow-up questions or on-the-spot fact checking that it appears to be a great interview. 

What would you have had Swan do to make it a better interview? 

[Joe Hass]

I have a question that I think exposes a little bit of how people approach journalism. Which do you think was a better interview: Swan or Wallace?

If you think Swan's interview was better, I think you're more aligned with what I'll call reformed journalism: where it's okay for an interviewer to have a point of view and challenge the subject from that, even being what some would call rude. If you think Wallace was better, you're from the more orthodox school, where you play it straight and push a little harder against where the subject outright lies, but what I'll call "respectful": Full question, full answer, follow-up as appropriate. You can absolutely like both, but which you prefer is a little bit of a tell. What has happened in the orthodox interviewers that allow for full answers don't know what to do when a subject filibusters or swerves. You've gotta now try to keep two or three follow-ups in your head while they're taking.

One of the things that I liked about Swan (and where I think he was better) was that he refused to take Trump's traditional mid-answer subject changes. When Trump went to do that, Swan interjected and forced him back onto the answer. The risk in that method is (as mentioned) you come off as rude. But the reward is that you force the subject to stay on the topic at hand and can draw out more (in this case, that Trump literally has no clue what's going on). The "books and manuals" moment was a perfect example of that.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4BhzwQmMxNhUdBe8wp5SWivZf%2BgzOAm590C6fQoz%2Bz%2BQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

What Swan did well was prepare questions and lead Trump into his usual lies, blustering, and non-answers. But that’s not difficult to do; asking Trump anything will almost guarantee a Trumpian non-answer. What needs to happen (and what I’d like to happen at the debates) is to keep pressing Trump not on his dumbass statements, and not even about the habitual lying, but about his actions and the actions taken by this administration. He’s enacted the most discriminatory policies in my lifetime. He’s plunged the nation deeper into debt (prior to Covid) faster than any point in my lifetime. He’s destroyed foreign policy... it genuinely does not exist. Long serving ranking members of government and the military have quit/resigned out of embarrassment at even being associated with Trump’s actions... that doesn’t get talked about enough. Instead of focusing on what he has said or proving (once again) how genuinely stupid Trump is, get into the substance. But if a reporter wanted to focus on Trump’s words, he has led verbal attacks on groups and individuals (the media being an obvious example) which directly led to murders of innocent people... that’s worthy of more than an hour of intense interrogation. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABCcf4cup4YABAyeGGw1MjFJDr5OhYFkp7c4-e8UU7Smgoa%3Dmg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Joe Hass]

Here's the problem with that: the people that know that already know it. The people that don't know it don't care.

Here's a snippet:

Swan: Lyndon Johnson! He passed the Civil Rights Act.
Trump: Ask, ask: how has it worked out? If you take a look at what Lyndon Johnson did. How has it worked out?
Swan: You think the Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

"Trump changed the subject back to his administration and the fact that black unemployment was low. (Before it became very high.)"

If you argue that Swan should've tried to force Trump to answer that question, then ask what the outcome of the answer would've been. Had Trump given an honest answer (Yes), then we'd have said "He's exactly as racist as we said he was" and they'd have said "And it *was* a huge mistake!". Had Trump lied (no), then we'd have said "What a liar!" and they'd have said "Trump's no dummy: he's not gonna talk bad about it."

By leaving that at that point, Swan did the job: he got Trump to question one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in the country's history.

You want to hold Trump accountable. But here's the thing: narcissists (especially sociopathic narcissists) don't believe they have to be held accountable. They're too good for the rest of us. Speaking as someone whose father married one: this woman couldn't find fault with herself if her life hung in the balance. Accountability is for other people.

As for wanting something to be able to show to people and go "SEE? SEE?": they don't see, because to see would be to admit they're as much of a piece of shit as he is (or that they're proud to be as much of a piece of shit as he is).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AKFXfNrkrkOUm%3D6%3D8j205h1hOAz_9%3D3aN7PbpUMb3oHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kevin M.]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:29 PM Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's the problem with that: the people that know that already know it. The people that don't know it don't care.

Here's a snippet:

Swan: Lyndon Johnson! He passed the Civil Rights Act.
Trump: Ask, ask: how has it worked out? If you take a look at what Lyndon Johnson did. How has it worked out?
Swan: You think the Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

"Trump changed the subject back to his administration and the fact that black unemployment was low. (Before it became very high.)"

If you argue that Swan should've tried to force Trump to answer that question, then ask what the outcome of the answer would've been. Had Trump given an honest answer (Yes), then we'd have said "He's exactly as racist as we said he was" and they'd have said "And it *was* a huge mistake!". Had Trump lied (no), then we'd have said "What a liar!" and they'd have said "Trump's no dummy: he's not gonna talk bad about it."

By leaving that at that point, Swan did the job: he got Trump to question one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in the country's history.

You want to hold Trump accountable. But here's the thing: narcissists (especially sociopathic narcissists) don't believe they have to be held accountable. They're too good for the rest of us. Speaking as someone whose father married one: this woman couldn't find fault with herself if her life hung in the balance. Accountability is for other people.

You nailed it... it isn’t about Trump feeling accountable... it is about the press holding him accountable to the rest of us. I don’t care what Trump thinks or how Trump feels. Just as I don’t care what drives Darth Vader, a villain’s motivation does not interest me. A journalists job is to use facts and evidence to uncover and report truths. They are the public record. There isn’t much of a public historical record of Andrew Jackson being held to account for his unbelievably racist politicking which resulted in the mass murder of countless Native Americans, so he gets to stay on the $20 bill. It needs to be clear that whether a decade from now or a century from now, the very name of Trump will be synonymous with everything wrong with humanity. Even if a third of this generation refuses to believe it, subsequent generations should recognize the Trump name as akin to failure, stupidity, ignorance, and intolerance. It ain’t that history is written by the victors, it is that history is written by journalists who are compelled to keep pushing and never give up. 

As for wanting something to be able to show to people and go "SEE? SEE?": they don't see, because to see would be to admit they're as much of a piece of shit as he is (or that they're proud to be as much of a piece of shit as he is).

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:55 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 1:26 PM Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 4:24 PM Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

That said, this wasn’t an especially good interview... it’s just that the people who typically interview Trump are so bad at even basic follow-up questions or on-the-spot fact checking that it appears to be a great interview. 

What would you have had Swan do to make it a better interview? 

What Swan did well was prepare questions and lead Trump into his usual lies, blustering, and non-answers. But that’s not difficult to do; asking Trump anything will almost guarantee a Trumpian non-answer. What needs to happen (and what I’d like to happen at the debates) is to keep pressing Trump not on his dumbass statements, and not even about the habitual lying, but about his actions and the actions taken by this administration. He’s enacted the most discriminatory policies in my lifetime. He’s plunged the nation deeper into debt (prior to Covid) faster than any point in my lifetime. He’s destroyed foreign policy... it genuinely does not exist. Long serving ranking members of government and the military have quit/resigned out of embarrassment at even being associated with Trump’s actions... that doesn’t get talked about enough. Instead of focusing on what he has said or proving (once again) how genuinely stupid Trump is, get into the substance. But if a reporter wanted to focus on Trump’s words, he has led verbal attacks on groups and individuals (the media being an obvious example) which directly led to murders of innocent people... that’s worthy of more than an hour of intense interrogation. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABCcf4cup4YABAyeGGw1MjFJDr5OhYFkp7c4-e8UU7Smgoa%3Dmg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4AKFXfNrkrkOUm%3D6%3D8j205h1hOAz_9%3D3aN7PbpUMb3oHA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CABru7%2BfaiRA%3D6b0vJ_4pEPFEdxs-OSqLyacZ2VV_z43TMqcTNA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

I watch and listen and read a lot of Trump, including all of his interviews, even with FN. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to do what would traditionally be thought if as a good interview with him. 

He is unconstrained by facts (Kevin mentions numbers, but that is just a specific example of the general case), he not only has no personal sense of shame, but he knows he will never pay a price for either lying or saying outrageous things. He has almost no attention span, and will lose interest in even his own answer half way through, much less care or attend to or understand the question the interviewer is asking. 

You might think a persistent and courageous interviewer could pin him down by laser focus on simple facts, no, they can not. Trump says grass is pink, the interviewer points to the lawn right in front of them and says “no, Mr. President, that grass right there is green”, and Trump will unblushingly either say it’s pink not green, say that green really is pink, or claim he never said grass was pink. Most likely he will do some version of all three of those, and more. And if you tried to pin him down on every lie and inconsistency, your 90 minute interview would cover two, probably trivial, topics.

In the context of the Trumpocolypse, Swan’s interview was top tier, probably top 5%. I doubt Mike Wallace (whose son also did a pretty good job) or Ted Kopell (or whoever else you think of as a top interviewer) could have done any better.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4Cb3xffUEw8%3Di6ROeYs8xMK1QUepHC2h4v1t2rcW%3DqCyA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[JW]

> There’s a viral video where the audio has been replaced by Python’s Dead
> Parrot sketch. Brilliant.

Here it is, with a strong endorsement.

https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1291059307228934144

[Paul Murray]

Thank you for saving me the trouble of trying to hunt it down. I needed this.