'Are you kidding me?' Rick Wilson slams the Jan. 6 Committee for only holding six hearings...

[Joinfortmill]

https://www.rawstory.com/rick-wilson-donald-trump/

Maybe, maybe not. If it's ok with the lady of steel, Cheney and my hero, Raskin,it's ok with me.

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, they can always add more, right?

[agingdem]

5. yes..

Rick Wilson is going all hyperbolic (for a change) but this isn't a sixteen part Netflix rom-com mini series...and considering the public's short attention span, six will probably be enough...

[Rebl2]

6. I would

think so

[Efilroft Sul]

2. Wilson's not wrong here. Six hearings is not enough to hold these bastards accountable.

[sop]

3. The Watergate hearings were broadcast live for two weeks in May 1973.

Back then people didn't have cable, and their attention spans were a lot longer. This time every juicy bit of information, all the heated back-and-forth and the most important highlights will be replayed on evening cable news show for hours. There won't be a lack of coverage.

[Pantagruel]

8. Don't forget

We now have the Interweb. All the evidence should be made available , interview videos, transcripts and documents organized for rapid access.

[Pantagruel]

4. Consider

U.S. is the capitol of short attention span theater. Absent a wardrobe malfunction the populace's focus will wane.

[TheRealNorth]

7. +1

No need to drag shit out if you can make a compelling case with 6 hearings.

[Takket]

9. Copied from other thread...

6 is a good number


Anyone who wants to use the watergate hearings as a template for how the Jan 6 hearings should go really just doesn’t get how content is consumed in 2022. NO ONE is going to sit there and watch hundreds of hours of hearings. If anything it would become a farce.

Attention spans are short and content is EVERYWHERE. the three networks had captives audiences during watergate. The world is nothing like that anymore. If you want these hearings to be impactful you keep them short and sweet. Stick to the major shocking evidence and testimony.

And make sure you have people pushing soundbites on twitter, tik tok and Facebook. Because THAT is where you are going to reach people. Not on the TV hearings.

[tableturner]

10. Six enough/maybe best, if efficient, impactful, dramatic, highly programmed hearings.

It would be by far the best if hearings were to begin with a bang and continue "banging" throughout; with no speeches, hemming, hawing, useless pontification, or procedural/ceremonial BS that would waste time, dilute the impact, and detract from the explosive and logical progression of damning evidence. The dramatics need to start about two minutes after the start of the first hearing and continue unabated until the last moment of the last hearing.

People are not going to watch ten or twelve hearings filled with procedural pomp, circumstance, and delays, with only a few days and hours of real damning facts that would move the needle relative to public perceptions of reality.

This is a PR battle to engage with a mostly disengaged populace that needs to be proverbially "grabbed by the neck" and "slapped in the face" with the reality of what happened. It needs to be short, dramatic, and highly programmed to change and/or effect the maximum number of American minds.

Again, don't forget that this is a PR battle, and NOT an exercise in highlighting an entire inventory of allegations and actions, many of which would NOT move the needle a bit, and which would serve to be an oversold smokescreen that would reduce the prominence of the truly explosive realities we NEED the public to understand. Efficient, explosive, dramatic...the only way we can convince the public and save our democracy!

[crickets]

11. I'm hoping that once hearings start,

the obvious need for more than six hours will start a push for more. It's smart if this is just the opening salvo, because I do not see how they can cover everything they need to cover in six hours.