Biden Aides Provided Questions in Advance for His Radio Interviews

[brooklynite]

New York Times

The questions asked of President Biden by two radio interviewers this week were provided in advance to the hosts by members of Mr. Biden’s team, one of the hosts said Saturday morning on CNN.

Andrea Lawful-Sanders, the host of “The Source” on WURD in Philadelphia, said Biden officials provided her with a list of eight questions ahead of the interview on Wednesday.

“The questions were sent to me for approval; I approved of them,” she told Victor Blackwell, the host of “First of All” on CNN. Asked if it was the White House that sent the questions to her in advance, she said it was.

“I got several questions — eight of them,” she said. “And the four that were chosen were the ones that I approved.”

[mzmolly]

1. And?

[brooklynite]

5. If your goal is to show that the President is energetic, alert and can think on his feet...

...this isn't the way to do it.

[mzmolly]

8. You mean post BS from the NYT?

I agree.

[shrike3]

9. And I'm sure no other candidate or president in the history of the nation has ever done this.

And I'll remind you, the NYT has blood on their hands already. If they succeed in getting Trump elected, there'll be a lot more.

[Duncanpup]

36. Exactly thank you

I’m so fed up with this over President Biden mental sharpness.
RFK sexual assaulted a child baby sitter as trump raped women and children yet they’re considered by press as normal.

[lapucelle]

95. According to the AP, Trump did it recently and then canceled the interview

when the interviewer wouldn't accede to his demands.

[Lauren Hitt, spokesman for the Biden campaign]also pointed to a Virginia TV station saying Trump’s campaign called off an interview after the debate after the station’s reporter refused to agree to conditions on his questions. The Trump campaign did not immediately return a message seeking comment on its interview practices or if such appearances had been canceled over subject matter.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-black-radio-questions-approval-ff92ebeff33df7ef5a87a59f776c981c?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

[Cha]

13. As opposed to your Obvious job of Dragging on

Pres Biden?

[shrike3]

40. I'm glad you said.

Glad I'm not the only one.

[Cha]

50. You're Not.. and I Appreciate your Posts!

Mahalo

[llmart]

91. Me too.

It gets tedious and predictable, yes?

[mcar]

70. All day today

[Cha]

71. Big Saturday For

Attending and I say attempting because It’s Not Working!

🕯️🕊️💙🌊🇺🇸

[mcar]

72. I agree, Cha

It's a holiday weekend. Someone apparently has time on their hands.

From what I am reading, rank and file Democrats, like us, are pissed off at both the so-called liberal media and those few squishy Dems who are not supporting our President.

[Cha]

81. 🦈 Sharks 🦈 are circling..

Smelling blood in the water.

Not having a clue that Pres Biden has been in shark infested Seas before and he has some seriously Heavy Hitters who have his back.

And we’re in Good Company 💙🍀🐶🐶🌊🇺🇸

[mcar]

85. We've got his back!

[Cha]

88. Yes Fending Off

🦈 attacks 🦈🦈

Mahalo mcar!

[Bettie]

136. Really does seem like a job

for some...or at least a hobby that they are really, really into.

Working to ensure that Democratic primary voters are told in no uncertain terms that their votes do not matter if the money people want a shiny new toy.

[Cha]

141. Well Put, Bettie!

Mahalo!

[Deminpenn]

63. Maybe the goal was to get a campaign

message out and talk about the Biden administration's accomplishments instead.

[edisdead]

108. This is getting preposterous.

[choie]

142. You mean other presidents haven't

provides questions ahead of time? Trump won’t even sit down for an interview and this is what you’re concerned about?

[travelingthrulife]

151. Sounded like it was standard procedure

n/t

[shrike3]

2. Oh, FFS. The NYT. I was done with them after Judith Miller. Thanks for reminding me why.

[brooklynite]

6. "Shoot the messenger"

Doesn't change the veracity of the story.

[shrike3]

10. Why the fuck should I believe them? Why the fuck should I take them seriously?

Why do YOU? They pushed the lie about WMDs, went rah-rah about the Irag War, and 290,000 people died. FOR NOTHING.

[brooklynite]

18. You don';t need to believe them...

Here's the video: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/06/politics/video/andrea-lawful-sanders-joe-biden-interview-questions-foa-digvid

[shrike3]

26. Oh, cool! CNN, too. The other Iraq warmongerer with blood on its hands. Tell me, did CNN go out and expressly find

someone who'd tell them exactly what they wanted to hear? I bet they did. In fact, I know they did. I was in media. For thirty years. Media creates narratives. They do it all the time. This is the most tightly-constructed, universally followed narrative I've ever seen. Makes me wonder.

I have worked for news organizations which were asked for questions in advance. Not a big deal. A good reporter can still do a hard-hitting interview. Notice I say good reporter. I'm not convinced there are such folks anymore.

A narrative does not equal truth. It simply equals a narrative someone wants to tell. For their own reasons. Your "friends," whoever they may be, are aiding and abetting this narrative. And they're rank cowards if they're going to quail at CNN interviews.

[brooklynite]

30. This is a video of the actual radio host who did the Biden interview

[shrike3]

43. Did you even read what I said?

I guess not.

The host was brought on to say what she said. That's how it works. Ten other hosts may say the complete opposite: Biden's people did not ask for questions in advance. But CNN doesn't want to hear from them. They want to hear from this woman. Because what she has to say FITS THE NARRATIVE.

Get it now?

[Ms. Toad]

66. I think you misread the OP (and may not have listened to the video).

Biden's people did not ask for question in advance. They gave the questions to the interviewer.

Are you saying that the interviewers were lying when they said they had been given the questions in advance by Biden's team? That's the only way what they said could be anything other than the factual.

As far as finding other hosts to say something different - first, they would be speaking truthfully rom their experience (just as these two were). The fact that different hosts have different experiences does not change the truth that the questions were given in advance to these two hosts. I haven't seen any assertion that Biden always - or even usually - provides questions in advance to radio hosts. Had that been the assertion I would agree with you. But it wasn't. The story was about these two hosts in these two interviews,

Second, I don't believe he has given any other radio interviews (aside from these two) since the debate. If that is the case, CNN (NYtimes, whoever) could not have just gone out and found more hosts to share their different experience with Biden, since the universe of post-debate radio interviews consists of these two radio hosts.

[shrike3]

69. No, I did not mis-read the OP. Some, apparently are mis-reading what I'm saying.

I am not saying they are lying. I am saying they were chosen BECAUSE THEIR STORY FITS THE NARRATIVE. The media does this ALL THE TIME. They were chosen to reinforce the narrative that Biden is slipping and needs to go. That is the only reason they were on there. If what they had to say did not fit the narrative they would not have been on CNN. It is THAT simple. This is how it's done. I was in media thirty years. I've seen it done. I've watched it done. It just boggles my mind how many people fall for it. Are falling for it.

[Ms. Toad]

73. You repeatedly said choosing the narrative does not make what was said the truth.

Facts are facts - regardless of the narrative they are embedded in. Choosing to highlight one aspect of a story - rather than another - doesn't make that aspect true or false - the veracity of each report stands on its own. Either these hosts were lying, or they were telling the truth. Choosing the narrative is simply choosing the vantage point from which we view the facts. It does not alter whether those alleged facts are true or not.

And you did misread the OP. You said that Biden's advisors asked the hosts for the questions. They did not. His advisors provided the questions to the radio hosts.

What's more, they did so in the only two radio interviews I have been able to find that have taken place since the debate. Are you aware of more since the debate?

CNN, etc. could choose not to do a story, but since the story isn't about Biden's general actions in interviews he has done from the beginning of time, it is about whether his actions since the debate are sufficient to salvage his candidacy, they could not just find other radio hosts who had different experiences interviewing Biden, since there are none that I can find. So the choice was to do the story or not. You can fault them for that decision, but your suggestion of just finding other hosts to show a different "truth" both can't be done, and is not relevant to Biden's cognitive abilities post-debate.

[shrike3]

75. Okay. One more time. The radio hosts are a part of the narrative that Biden is unfit.

That is why they were allowed on CNN. They are taking part in building the narrative. I don't understand why you can't get that. There is a purpose. There is a point to this. If the radio hosts did not provide what CNN wanted, they would not have been on TV. Do you think the narrative is true. Do you think Biden is unfit and should step down? If you do -- then I guess we're done here.

[sheshe2]

82. You have the patience of a Saint.

Thank you, shrike.

[shrike3]

83. You're welcome.

[shrike3]

100. Maybe third time's a charm?

[shrike3]

115. Well, kid. Third time wasn't a charm.

[sheshe2]

120. Oh no!

They're baaaack.

[shrike3]

121. Are they ever.

I'm starting to think they're on retainer.

[Ms. Toad]

96. You are confusing facts with narrative.

If the facts embedded in a narrative are false, it makes the narrative false. But the reverse is not true - a false narrative says nothing at all about the veracity of the embedded facts - which can all be true, but cherry-picked to create that false overall story. The reason I responded (like a few others that I read) is that you repeatedly clamed that a false narrative (that Biden can't perform without a script) made the facts embedded in it (that Biden's advisors gave two interviewers questions in advance) false. That's nonsense.

I can string a narrative together that is absolutely untrue using absolutely true, but carefully chosen facts. The fact that the overall narrative is false does not make the facts, themselves, false.

You may well believe the narrative is false, or unfair. But if you want to disprove it, you'll need to either (1) disprove the underlying facts - not just state that they are false because the narrative is false - or (2) find those counter examples you claim are out there (that I can't find - because there have been no radio interviews that I can find since the debates).

Failing that, you can contend it is an inappropriate or unfair focus for the media's attention and that they shouldn't have done the story. But that doesn't erase the inconvenient truth that in the only two radio interviews I'm aware of since the debate, Biden's team gave the questions to the interviewers in advance of the interview. Were I one of Biden's handlers, that is not a choice I would have made - unless I truly had concerns about his ability to handle questions on the fly, since giving the interviewers the questions in advance is not something that is likely to remain a secret in the intense scrutiny directed at his mental competence this week.

Personally - completely unrelated to the discussion about the relationship between facts and narrative - I wish he had decided not to run again. I have significant policy differences with him, especially on his handling of Gaza and immigration. My concerns increased this week with him endorsing an anti-trans policy for the purpose of trying to salvage votes. I also have age-related concerns. No one gets out of this alive - and no one dies of old age without experiencing a decline in advance of that. I think we are better served by someone closer to the peak of their cognitive abilities than this far on the waning end.

But, my concerns aside, once he declared he was running, that boat sailed. Best candidate or not, unless/until he decides to step down, he is our only chance to defeat Trump.

[shrike3]

99. I guess I do have the patience of a saint. Because once again, narrative determines which facts are presented.

We only see the facts that the media wants us to see/hear/read. That is the point of the narrative. That's how they work. That's why they are developed. Facts are cherry-picked. There could be ten people out there who'd say that Biden came in cold for an interview and did brilliantly. It doesn't matter whether they exist or not: if they did, we'd never hear them. We would only hear the two radio hosts who say what the media wants us to hear. Even if there were twenty people out there to refute them, their voices would be heard. Because their voices, facts, fit the narrative.

If you can't get that after the third time telling, it sure ain't my fault. Can't do much with people who are deliberately obtuse.

[Ms. Toad]

112. Nope, I have the patience of a saint.

I responded to your initial assertions, which you have now changed. You asserted repeatedly that a false narrative made the embedded facts also false. After I read a few of them, I got annoyed with your repetition of nonsense about the logical relationship between facts and narrative and chimed in.

I'll take your changed narrative (dropping the nonsense statements about a false narrative making the embedded facts false) - and now focusing exclusively on narrative - as an acknowledgement that you misspoke originally.

As to whether the existence of other interviewers with different experiences makes a difference, that is also nonsense. Radio interviews are public events. Their existence is known. There have been two of them since the debate, and both hosts had the same experience. Since they brought the entire universe of hosts (all two of them) - and all of them had the same experience, it isn't a narrative; it is a fact that in all interviews since the debate, Biden's team provided the questions to the interviewers.

If there had been 10 interviews since the debate, and CNN (etc.) only interviewed two of them, the argument about cherry-picking to create a narrative would have some validity. If this story about private conversations Biden had with others (of which there could be many whose existence is unknown), the argument that the story presented by two of them was not representative would have some validity because no one has any way of knowing about all of Biden's private conversations (either the existence or the content) .

Because that is not the case, their choice is to report the facts (in 2/2 radio interviews since the debate, the Biden team gave the questions to the interviewer) - or not. There isn't an option to use selected facts, since they are reporting 100% of the data points on the question.

Bottom line - you are now arguing exclusively that news media creates a narrative they want us to hear. I haven't disputed that at all. All I have challenged you on is (1) your early statements to several posters that a false narrative made the embedded facts false and (2) your assertion that the Biden aides ASKED for the questions (when in fact it was the exact opposite - Biden aides GAVE the questions to the interviewers).

[shrike3]

113. Third time wasn't a charm, was it, sweetheart?

So, why are you so excited about this? Sounds like you're wetting your pants with excitement over two radio hosts that'll be forgotten in a couple days. Maybe I should let you in peace, to complete the experience.

Are you related to the OP?

[Ms. Toad]

117. And logic is apparently not your strong suit. n/t

[shrike3]

118. You're related to the OP, right?

[Ms. Toad]

123. Not as far as I know.

I couldn't even have told you who authored the OP, without going back to the thread to check.

But, since I have a healthy respect for logic, all I can say with certainty since he has chosen to remain anonymous, is that nothing he has posted about himself sounds anything like anyone I know or am related to.

[shrike3]

125. Then he should put you on retainer.

[sheshe2]

127. His name is on his profile page.

[Ms. Toad]

134. Well, so it is.

I looked at the profile and saw the gender - but I guess I'm not used to seeing real names actually listed and skipped right over it.

Then, I'm pretty darn sure I'm not related (absent some genealogical quirks like those that make me related to both Bush and Clinton), and pretty sure I don't know him.

[Yoyoyo77]

137. The same woman said that she was impressed by Biden.

[shrike3]

139. Surprised she got away with that. No one's supposed to have anything nice to say.

[FrenchCitizen]

32. CNN has so many HACK journalists

They cover for them too!

[shrike3]

35. I haven't watched CNN in twenty-odd years.

The end came when one of their airheads with a microphone stood at the site of yet another truck bombing in Baghdad. "Why does this keep happening?" she says. She grabs the nearest Iraqi. (Dumb move. Putting someone in front of a camera when you haven't a clue what they'll say.) "Why does this keep happening?" she asks. "Because the Americans are here," he says. Clear as day. She lets go of him, looks at the camera and says. "No one really know why this keeps happening."

"That's it," I said, and shut it off. Haven't turned it on again since.

[FrenchCitizen]

42. CNN isnt known for being full of brainiacs

[OnDoutside]

3. Should NYT be classified as pro Trump/Putin ?

[shrike3]

77. They're pro-money. And they're pro being the paper of record.

And their noses are out of joint because Biden never sat down for an interview with them.

[Cha]

4. lol @ OP & the NYT.

[sheshe2]

84. +1

[Cha]

92. Aloha she 🕯️🕊️💙🇺🇸🍀🐶🐶

[ornotna]

7. Yeah, that's never happened before

Obviously.

[SocialDemocrat61]

98. I believe it's standard practice

for non-news entertainment shows. I dated a talent coordinator for a late night show and this was a standard practice.

[jalan48]

11. I'm getting the feeling we are being prepared for Biden stepping down.

[Deek1935]

19. Has said repeatedly he's NOT getting out, and he will again tomorrow at two events in PA. What more do you need?

[jalan48]

22. Time will tell.

[FrenchCitizen]

24. Time will NOT tell

Joe has said he is NOT QUITTING. End of story!

[Silent Type]

27. Nah, there is more to story.

[FrenchCitizen]

28. Source plz

[Silent Type]

33. Well, there a whole lot more to come. In the meantime, would you like to hear a clip with Al Franken and Norm On

https://fb.watch/t9jIFvA9yX/

For those that don't want to look, this is a clip of Norm Onstein who appears on Franken's podcast often. In the clip with Franken, Onstein says Biden should have nailed trump on abortion when trump said babies are killed late in term, etc.

Onstein says, Biden meant to say women were dying without treatment, But, then, Biden got mixed up and turned it back to immigration and gave an example that was about an migrant killing a woman. Franken chimes in to clarify, "Biden did that." Then, Onstein said, if this isn't fixed in a few days, we are in a heap of trouble.
_________________

I don't think it's been fixed. You are welcome to your opinion.

[Deek1935]

37. Biden said clearly that after-birth abortion was a lie. He said late terms abortions were only for very rare medical

situations. Read the whole transcript. He was very tired, had a cold, and said he had a bad night. Even still, he did make a number of good points and did push back a number of times. He called out lies several times, even saying "Everything Trump just said was a lie." Hard to refute an endless stream of lies.

[Silent Type]

44. Nah, he mixed up abortion and immigrants and gave an example of a migrant killing a woman. What the hell is

encouraging about that if you are a Democrat preferring to win in Nov?

[shrike3]

78. Actually, no. He didn't mix it up. He did what Trump did. He didn't answer the question and instead focused on

one of Trump's lies. Was it a good choice? Obviously not. But Trump countered nearly every question with campaign lies. And is getting a pass.

[beaglelover]

74. If he was very tired and had a cold the campaign should have been smart enough to say Joe is ill and we will have to

postpone the debate.

[SalviaBlue]

87. Great... Al Franken and Norm Ornstein are now "Frankening" Biden

We have reached the peak of predictable Democratic behavior.

[Pinback]

130. No they're not.

Listen to the podcast. They’re both concerned, and they do discuss what-if scenarios, but neither of them says it’s time for Biden to step down.

[Pinback]

128. Yeah, I listened to that whole podcast.

While both discuss their concerns, at no point does either Franken or Ornstein say it’s time for Biden to step down.

[Deek1935]

34. Here we go again from the wet blanket crowd who refuse to believe their own ears.

[Silent Type]

38. Well, I'll be a wet-blanket, bed-wetter -- whatever else you want to call me - now to avoid watching trump win in Nov.

[Biophilic]

61. I know 3 people who have declared that if Biden's not on the ballot they give up.

We are older and we are tired. We honestly don’t believe anyone but Biden can beat trump in November. So what’s the purpose of supporting and fighting for someone who has very little chance of winning. It’s discouraging to come to this conclusion at this point in life, but maybe we’ll just spend the next 4 months in oblivion. Better than in a state of constant discourage and turmoil.

[shrike3]

79. If Biden's not on the ballot, things'll get worse. When you appease, they want more.

This will not end.

[shrike3]

80. You've kind of made it clear already.

[shrike3]

57. They're doing their damndest to convince us it's the right thing and they know better.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

90. The Great Fascist Campaign to get us to do their work for them.

Because THIS is the man they KNOW in their black hearts can beat their felon.

[sop]

12. "Fox News Gave Very Cogent Donald Trump Interview Questions in Advance"

"When they are speaking in public, Fox News personalities will tell their audience that Donald Trump is brilliant and articulate. 'He can talk fluently on every single topic with no preparation,' insisted Sean Hannity last night."

"In private, they know perfectly well that Trump rambles incoherently. CNN has obtained more texts sent to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, in the days surrounding the insurrection. They find Fox News talent working as unpaid Trump staffers — Hannity asked Meadows for talking points, and replied 'Yes sir' when given them — while also conveying their clear understand that Trump needs hand-holding to make it through an interview."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/fox-news-gave-very-cogent-donald-trump-questions-in-advance.html

Why aren't you pushing for Trump to step aside?

[dutch777]

14. Pretty sure Trump doesn't go in with everything open ended, ever. But this and the debate does make me wonder...

...about what may be amounting to siege mentality by the Biden inner circle. And the more of that is out there the more of the voting public will wonder what are we not seeing, hearing or reading that is germane to our decision in Novermber. I appreciate their interest in protecting him, but given everything it is a tightrope they are walking.

[Lifeafter70]

15. This is a non story for me.

Biden's campaign gave them eight topics they wanted to discuss in the form of questions. Ms Sanders approved four of them. I do not see where she states there would not be additional questions or topics of her choice. Again I repeat she approved four.

[Deek1935]

16. Do you live under a wet blanket? This from the person who said Dean Phillips was going to win the NH primary.

[brooklynite]

20. No, this is from the radio host doing the interview...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/06/politics/video/andrea-lawful-sanders-joe-biden-interview-questions-foa-digvid

[Deek1935]

21. You often post wet blanket crap. NYT? Seriously. Gee, from the rag at the forefront of attacking Biden. What shit.

It is common for all kinds of interviews, in one form or another, to discuss the topics and questions to be covered beforehand, and are you seriously thinking the interviewer would not have had any right to ask additional questions, follow up questions, etc.? Give me a break.

[brooklynite]

23. I post newsworthy items.

If you want to live in a good news bubble, you're welcome to ignore me.

[Deek1935]

25. You seem to thrive on wet blanketism. It is really odd. And you damaged yourself BADLY predicting a Dean Phillips win.

[former9thward]

47. You have been a member for a week.

How would you know so much about what other people were posting before NH?

[ClearSky24]

51. You are very perceptive.

Check this out:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/125626115

[shrike3]

101. Gee, and here I've been scolded and told to lay off low posters. Go figure.

[former9thward]

105. I have no problem with low posters.

But I am curious when someone whose profile says he/she has been here a week seems to know what specific posters have posted six months ago.

[shrike3]

111. They were lurking six months ago?

What I've been told over and over again by stalwarts who defend low posters?

I was locked out after the great hack of 2016 and lurked throughout the Trump administration. Finally rejoined at the end of it. There are posters memorable to remember six months later, while lurking.

[former9thward]

114. Yes, I guess.

And after all that lurking, posting hundreds of posts in a week's time. Guess there was a lot of things someone wanted to get out there.

[shrike3]

116. I find it weird myself.

But having been assured over and over that there's nothing wrong with it ... what can I say.

I tend to be suspicious of low posters, but I am trying to get over it.

[choie]

144. You should

Get over it.

[shrike3]

153. Whatever. I just said in I think three separate posts that I am trying to.

[choie]

143. Just because someone only recently started posting

Doesn’t mean they haven’t been reading this forum. That is a bogus argument.

[MustLoveBeagles]

109. I lurked for years before joining DU

Maybe the same is true of Deek.

[shrike3]

122. I am trying to overcome my bias re low posters.

And will give Deek benefit of the doubt.

[MustLoveBeagles]

135. I can understand the suspicion towards them

Those with bad intentions usually out themselves.

[shrike3]

140. True enough,

[shrike3]

59. Deek is right. I worked in media. I wouldn't say it's common, but it's done.

The handlers for any personality, political or otherwise, would be insane not to lay groundwork of some kind. It would be insane to send the subject in cold.

There's a reason politicians have favorite reporters. They know in advance there'll likely be favorable coverage.

[Wingus Dingus]

17. I can see agreeing on topics to be discussed, or the candidate being given

a heads up on certain specific questions the host is planning that might be tricky or touchy, if it's friendly entertainment type media and not "serious" journalism. But "I'll tell YOU the questions you're going to ask" is a little weird.

[mcar]

29. What is the purpose of this?

Why are you joining into the media feeding frenzy?

Why aren't you asking your friends in the media and the Democratic party why they aren't reporting anything on Trump being a pedophile?

[flamingdem]

31. What's up? Right wingers in the twitterverse are posting this

Didn't think of you as one of them.

[Think. Again.]

129. Why didn't you?

[ColinC]

39. The NYT hit job continues and some folks are complicit with it

[33taw]

41. And, I don't care or believe them. This is RW media trying to discredit Biden.

[Progressive dog]

45. Isn't that so horrible

I'll bet the White House never expected the Times to find that out.

[CivicGrief]

46. You are no longer raising alarm.

You are helping create a narrative to disparage the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.

[JohnSJ]

48. anything The NY Times reports is suspect. Remember the

WMDs, or the lies about Hillary’s email

[delisen]

49. FDR did his own Fireside Chats on radio to inform/reassure America in crii

FDR needed to reassure America in crisis that our government would survive. He did not need to demonstrate what a snappy think on your feet, quick comeback performer he was. No one expected that of a president. It was not deemed essential to thr position.

I do not see a problem at this point in time with a president sending an interviewer a list of suggested questions to choose from.

We live in an environment of 24/7 talk radio-mostly right wing authoritarian. If I call a program, they will screen me, and not allow me on air if they so choose. They control their narrative.
Around most of the country we have no radio discussion of our Democratic plans and programs, just negative attacks and disparagement.

I don’t think most people even MAGAs would find this strategy unusual or shocking.

[debm55]

52. Why do you continue to post these "facts" about Biden?

[Self Esteem]

53. You really seem to enjoy pushing anti-Biden articles.

I've been on this forum a little over a week and I don't think you've posted one even remotely positive thing about Biden. I get being a realist and wanting to capture the whole narrative but it's clear you're not really interested in that and instead entirely focused on attacking Biden from any angle - and source - you can find.

But hey, it's cool. You've got a picture with Joe. How can you hate?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

55. A week?

[Self Esteem]

56. And a couple days I guess?

[Emrys]

54. They need a new playbook:

Brazile under siege after giving Clinton debate question

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donna-brazile-wikileaks-fallout-230553

If you see youself as part of "they", that's your judgement.

[Baitball Blogger]

58. Yawn.

[hatrack]

60. WTI

.

[WheelWalker]

62. At the moment, fifty-nine Replies... one Rec.

[jmbar2]

64. Feeding the frenzy again.

I am seeing a distinct pattern here.

[ismnotwasm]

65. So. I read the article. What, exactly is your point here?

This is written like shit, to stir shit.

Later on Saturday, a person familiar with the campaign’s booking operation, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, said that policy had changed, and that while interview hosts have always been free to ask whatever questions they please, the campaign would no longer offer suggested questions to hosts.

Ms. Lawful-Sanders said Saturday that she “never once felt pressured to ask certain questions” from the campaign.

“I chose questions that were most important to the Black and brown communities we serve in Philadelphia,” she said. “Those questions proved to be exactly what Black and brown communities desired.”
The campaign had scheduled interviews with the hosts of two radio programs with large Black followings as part of a broader effort to reassure Americans of his mental fitness after the debate last month raised deep concerns among many Democrats about his ability to win in November.

The whole shitty, fucked up article is full of weasel words and implications. Just crap. Gross.

[misanthrope]

67. So I am to believe that the Biden campaign team

asked Stephanopoulos to badger Joe repeatedly about cognitive tests?

[former9thward]

76. The OP was about radio interviews.

Not the TV interview.

[Deminpenn]

68. Blackwell made the same assumption as

you do that the WH was trying to "prove the vim, vigor..." of Biden.

That doesn't appear to be true based on Blackwell's account of what questions were asked. It was clear to me that the radio interviews targeted to an AfAm audience were intended to get Biden's message of accomplishments, the stakes of the election and the importance of voting in Nov out to AfAm voters. The goal was to get talking points out and they did. You might also note that asking about the debate wasn't off limits.

Biden just did an unscripted interview with ABC that aired Friday to the disappointment of Jon Karl and company there were no gotcha moments. That's why you haven't heard or read any stories about it since it aired.

[Scrivener7]

86. And?

[texasfiddler]

89. Better than the same question asked 14 different ways. NT

[lapucelle]

93. Isn't this more or less standard procedure?

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

94. From the AP story:

The Biden campaign noted that it is common practice to suggest questions and said it did not make acceptance of the questions a prerequisite for the interviews themselves.

Lauren Hitt, spokesperson for the Biden campaign, said it is “not at all an uncommon practice for interviewees to share topics they would prefer,” adding that the questions sent to both Ingram and Lawful-Sanders “were relevant to news of the day,” including Biden’s debate performance and “what he’d delivered for Black Americans.”

She also pointed to a Virginia TV station saying Trump’s campaign called off an interview after the debate after the station’s reporter refused to agree to conditions on his questions. The Trump campaign did not immediately return a message seeking comment on its interview practices or if such appearances had been canceled over subject matter.

snip-----------------------------------------

Ingram asked four questions in his 18-minute interview. He asked if Biden could “speak to to some accomplishments that we may or may not be familiar with about your record, especially here in Wisconsin,” what was at stake for Black voters in the election, what Biden would say to people who believe their vote doesn’t matter, and if he could address his debate performance and a remark Trump made during the debate about people crossing the border and taking what he called “Black jobs.”

https://apnews.com/article/biden-black-radio-questions-approval-ff92ebeff33df7ef5a87a59f776c981c?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

[shrike3]

102. Some folks just won't listen.

Lots of examples lately.

[Pinback]

148. Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

Thank you for this dose of reality. Some folks are pushing their own spin even harder than usual.

[Deminpenn]

97. One final point to your assumption that the goal was to show

"an energetic Biden". The WURD interview was audio only. Biden wasn't in the studio. He could easily have stats and data and talking points in front of him. No one would be the wiser.

I also listened to the interview.

[shrike3]

103. Don't bring logic into this. You'll confuse people.

[Groundhawg]

104. it happens.

[LuvLoogie]

106. So?

[Srkdqltr]

107. Don't most do that? Everyone interviewed has a reason for the interview and needs to make points.

This isn't a deal breaker.

[edisdead]

110. This is standard.

Give it a rest already

[Tumbulu]

119. Are you unaware that this is how most interviews are organized?

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2024, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

I speak in public and do podcasts, etc. It is normal prior to any interview to have had a chance to prepare content that is in sync with the interest of the particular audience.

I seriously question the motives of the people who wrote this article ( are they really that stupid?)!

[Freethinker65]

124. I assume George Stephanopoulos was only given one question.

[brooklynite]

126. UPDATE: Biden team says it will stop offering questions to interviewers

The Biden campaign now says it will no longer suggest questions to interviewers of the president.

“While interview hosts have always been free to ask whatever questions they please, moving forward we will refrain from offering suggested questions,” a source familiar with the Biden booking operation tells CNN.

That comes after Andrea Lawful-Sanders, a radio host in Philadelphia, told CNN that she received a list of recommended questions from Biden’s team, of which she chose four. She was among the first interviewers to talk to President Joe Biden following his lackluster debate performance, after allies called on the president to do more off-the-cuff engagements.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-election-07-05-24#h_6639acaa53ba55c97c1fc6cffe80cb28

[dpibel]

132. Well, that'll happen

when the big donors pile on and express shock and horror that such tawdry things are going on.

Even though, as many have noted on this, as usual, ridiculously long thread considering the content, this is utterly SOP.

But you knew that.

Right?

[Brenda]

147. Don't expect an answer.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[SocialDemocrat61]

133. So now the Trump campaign can still

suggest questions but the Biden campaign won't. Hmm 😒

[Diraven]

138. Trump still wouldn't answer

The actual questions they ask him instead of babbling whatever nonsense pops into his Adderall-addled brain.

[lapucelle]

149. So I guess next it will be, "The Democrats suck at messaging"

when our talking points don't get made.



And now we have ceded a standard practice that Trump can still take full advantage of.

[Seeking Serenity]

145. I don't care if every interview is scripted and blocked like a tent-pole production

With the top Hollywood writers and Jon Favreau directing, etc.

Whatever works.

[MistakenLamb]

146. just admit Joe can never good enough for yall

Link to tweet

?s=46

[Bettie]

150. That is pretty standard practice

especially if it is planned to be a short interview, they'll be sent a list of questions and ask which (insert number) they'd prefer to discuss.

But, that really doesn't matter if all you are looking for is a reason to invalidate the votes of millions of primary voters.

[Patton French]

152. I don't think it's all that uncommon. NT