Unpopular opinion: I thought CNN/Dana Bash did a fine job with the interview

[BlueCheeseAgain]

I know bashing the media is popular here, but I honestly thought Dana Bash did a perfectly reasonable job with the interview. She asked a fair number of open-ended policy questions, some that were more adversarially framed but covered necessary ground, and a couple of softballs. The only questions I thought were silly gotcha politics was the stuff about Tim Walz's long-ago quotes. Once the questions were asked, Bash let Kamala Harris and Tim Walz answer at length without interrupting or talking over them.

I also thought that Harris did a really great job herself, of course. I think she should do a lot more interviews or town halls. They don't have to be with the big names-- it can be late night TV, magazines, daytime talk shows, and especially local news shows.

[Tetrachloride]

1. I don't see most videos such as speeches and interviews.

I read what DU says.

Hence, So and Therefore, thanks for the alternate analysis.

[StopTheNeoCons]

22. Zerlina Maxwell: Only 4 questions from Dana Bash weren't a GOP attack

Zerlina Maxwell: Only 4 questions from Dana Bash weren't a GOP attack or talking point in the form of a question

[lame54]

2. Kamala saved her...

By stomping on her "Trump says you just recently turned black what do you think about that" question

It was horrible and Kamala mercy killed it

[BlueCheeseAgain]

4. I honestly thought that was an invitation...

Bash was giving Harris an opportunity to tee off on Trump. Harris declined it, which is fine. Maybe she could have pivoted and said, "Well of course that's ridiculous. But Trump says a lot of ridiculous things. Have you seen what he's posted just in the last day? QAnon stuff, disgusting sexist memes, other things like that. This is not a well person. There's no way someone this unbalanced can be anywhere near the White House."

[lame54]

8. So, Kamala blew it...

She'll never get that chance again to point out Trump is insane, racist and reprehensible

Are you really black is a terrible question
Not one interviewer has asked Trump why he insist on being Orange
Which is a legitimate question since it's a character trait and not something he was born with

[BlueCheeseAgain]

9. Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say she blew it.

Also, the question wasn't "Are you black?"

It was, "Do you want to respond to what Trump said?"

[lame54]

18. What Trump's words boil down to is...

Are you really black
Dana: Would you like to respond

[TheKentuckian]

28. An extreme and jaundiced iterpretation of the post you replied to.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. So "which is fine" is "she blew it", in your understanding

Wow.

[spanone]

19. She refused to get down to his subterranean level. Best answer she could give.

'Next question?'

[Gaytano70]

30. Thank you.

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2024, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Responding to ad hominin attacks gives them way more power than they deserve. Kamala's response was perfect, and the subtext was, "not playing that game with you, Dana!"

[sboatcar]

26. She gave the best answer to it too

No need to beat that dead horse.


I do hope that Trump disrespecting our fallen soldiers (again) sticks around in the news cycle, that was extremely disrespectful.

[True Blue American]

29. Dana asked 10 questions quoting what Trump said.

Reporters on the Reid Out bashed Dana for it.

[LonePirate]

3. Bash did little but ask questions that felt lifted from a right wing playbook.

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2024, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)

It seemed to me like Harris and Walz were being interviewed by Laura Ingraham.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

6. I disagree.

Some questions were straightforward, like "What will you do on Day 1?", and "What will you do about Israel-Palestine?"

Some were phrased a little adversarially, but asking someone why they changed their position on an issue, is standard and a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

The questions asked to Walz were silly, I agree. And the question about Trump and Harris being black felt like an invitation and not an endorsement of what Trump said.

[True Blue American]

31. Agree.repeating what Trump said about her.

[Bev54]

57. 100%

[SocialDemocrat61]

5. Legitimate criticism of the corporate media

for parroting GOP talking points, not fact checking Trump and always holding democrats to a much higher standard is not bashing. And it’s unfair and disrespectful to other DU members to characterize as such.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

7. Oh, for gods sake.

I'm being disrespectful by stating my opinion? Please.

[SocialDemocrat61]

10. If you denigrate the opinions of

other DU members as bashing, then yes.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

11. Go report me, then.

[SocialDemocrat61]

15. For what?

[Kaleva]

48. The criticism doesn't change anything

People here have been complaining about MSM for as long as I've been a member, since early 2008.

People like to bitch.

The only recourse is to ignore MSM but like I just said, people like to bitch so watching or reading MSM allows them to indulge in one of their favorite hobbies. Bitching

[SocialDemocrat61]

51. So keeping them accountable is just bitching?

Is criticizing Trump and republicans just bitching too?

[Kaleva]

63. Are you keeping them accountable?

How are you doing that?

[SocialDemocrat61]

65. Exercising my first amendment rights

to call them out on their bs. Silence is complicity

[AkFemDem]

67. Your silence or non-silence is irrelavent to them.

Corporate media lives and dies by clicks. CNN gets the clicks. There's nothing wrong with howling in the wind and complaining about them because sometimes complaining feels good... but let's not pretend you're "keeping them accountable".

[SocialDemocrat61]

71. Maybe it is

Maybe it isn't. Who's to know?

[Kaleva]

68. Silently turning off cable news is effective

Continuing to watch is being complicit as your viewing adds to their profits and they thus have no incentive to change

[SocialDemocrat61]

70. Never said I watch them

There are many platforms that report what they are doing

[hvn_nbr_2]

12. I agree significantly, not completely

The beginning of the interview seemed to start off with pushing GQP talking points, but the end presented some very favorable things like Walz's son at the convention and Harris's grandniece(?) in that iconic picture.

As you mention, she allowed Harris and Walz to answer without interrupting. She also didn't seem to badger them to try to get answers she wanted with follow-ups.

When Bash asked the question about "becoming black," I thought Harris's "next question" response had an unspoken sub-text of Why would you ask such a dumb question? That may have been the point where it shifted away from GQP talking points but I'd have to re-watch to see if that is so.

Bash was certainly more fair and neutral than Stephanopolis or Holt were with Biden.

One thing that I haven't heard anyone talk about: I thought that CNN's lighting was very uncomplimentary to Harris, putting part of her face in darkness and with lighting angles that made harsh shadows on her face.

At the end of the interview, before I read or listened to analysis, my initial impression was: Wow, CNN has seen the handwriting on the wall, knows their preferred guy is going down, and wants to get on the good side of the prospective new administration.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

13. Thank you for your comment.

Plenty of Republican and conservative folks are annoyed and think the interview was too soft. So maybe it wasn't a McCarthy hearing after all.

[Demsrule86]

25. I don't agree at all.

[senseandsensibility]

17. The many threads and comments I see on DU criticizing the media

are not "knee jerk and stupid" at all. They are usually backed up with examples and reasons. I, for one, offer many criticisms of the corporate media because they deserve it. It is its fault that these RW talking points take hold in the first place and are repeated ad nauseum even on "progressive" stations. It is not solely VP Harris's responsibility to shoot down these talking points. It is the free press's job too. If VP Harris has to spend all her time debunking RW bad faith talking points, she has less time to critique her opponent, give an optimistic vision for the future, or inspire independent and republican voters. Cheato is not asked to respond to bad faith Dem talking points because there aren't any. My opinions may be knee jerk and stupid to you but guess what? Many agree with me.

[TheProle]

20. If the shoe doesn't fit, why take offense?

But guess what? People agreeing with you doesn't necessarily make you right.

Have a great holiday weekend.

[SocialDemocrat61]

36. Agreed

This is what the corporate media sycophants do, they mischaracterize legitimate criticism of the corporate media to denigrate the criticism because they can’t honestly refute it.

[senseandsensibility]

39. Bingo!

Of all the positions and opinions to criticize, corporate media critiques would be very very low on the list. And especially on DU where they are almost always made in good faith. It's like standing up for management during a labor strike because of some technicality. Yes, maybe the management made a good point or two but the cumulative result of their actions is harmful to the workers. In this case, the cumulative actions of corporate journalists are harmful to our democracy.

[Bev54]

58. Empty Wheel has a good article up about the interview and the dishonest reporting about the interview

from NYtimes and others. Marcy Wheeler can put into words what we feel about the MSM and she backs up every word of it.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/08/30/michael-shear-and-reid-epstein-feign-stupidity-about-timelines-to-cover-up-trumps-authoritariaism/

[senseandsensibility]

60. Thanks!

I'll check it out.

[ecstatic]

23. For me, the issue is that for weeks the media has breathlessly demanded

an interview. Then when they finally get the interview, look at what they asked?

They're not serious! They just want to gossip and instigate. Did you stick around for their little post interview panel? 🤔

Also, a lot of my anger and frustration is based on the double standards. The republican nominee for president of the United States attempted a coup last cycle, and has 34 felony convictions with 54 more felony charges pending.

Had the media been doing their jobs properly we wouldn't be here right now. Democracy can only continue with a well-informed population. They are not informing the public properly. That is why we have to wonder if we'll still have a democracy every other election cycle. It's exhausting!

[karynnj]

16. I agree

Many of the questions are things Trump wants to use against her. Harris would clearly have well thought out responses to them. Bash asking them in a calm voice then giving Harris the time to respond completely allows Harris to get her side out.

Harris and Walz both did very well and came out sounding like they were answering questions and remaining sane and likable ... things Trump and Vance have problems with.

[ecstatic]

21. She was respectful but her questions were dumb

I'm sorry, they just were. It was all about gotcha moments.

[tishaLA]

77. The one question I really objected to

Was the one about "well if you want to do these things, why haven't you done them in three and a half years?"

Like the VP sets policy and priorities. Bash knows better and, even though I could excuse it was a "please respond to this criticism of you" question, it was just too silky.

[Silent Type]

24. Agree 100%. She let them answer questions that are bound to come up. And, the Gus and Harris' niece segment could

not have been better.

The narrative is that the all media is horrible, GOPers and Democrats feel that way. And gawd forbid anyone say anything good about press.

I love Joe Biden, but without press pressure, we wouldn't be doing so well right now.

[SocialDemocrat61]

38. Legitimate criticism of the corporate media

is not a narrative. It’s holding them accountable for their actions.

[senseandsensibility]

42. Meaning that you think the press pushed Joe Biden out

and that's why we're ahead?

[Silent Type]

43. Meaning we now have candidates who appeal to younger voters and others, and can win.

Absolutely nothing against Biden, he’s a great President.

[senseandsensibility]

45. While I agree that the press in large part pushed him out

the pushing out part wouldn't have been necessary if they had covered him fairly in the first place.

[Silent Type]

46. If Jill Biden had been asking questions, the June 27th debate would still be a catastrophe.

Glad we turned it around, and thank goodness for Biden.

[Sympthsical]

27. It was totally fine

But some people think an interview should be, "How comes you're so awesome? What events in your life led you to being so awesome? And just as a follow up, how will you bring this awesomeness into office?"

It feels like people are just hate-watching the media in general. Geared up to find every slight, misstep, disagreed with decision, and bit of dialogue off message.

Which hey, I get. I sat through the Acolyte.

But even that show ended so you get a break. Shit's not good for blood pressure.

[SocialDemocrat61]

37. Really? Who said that?

I’ve never read anyone here post that an interview should be “How comes you're so awesome? What events in your life led you to being so awesome? And just as a follow up, how will you bring this awesomeness into office?"

Of course I don’t read every post, so please post a link to the post that said that.

[Sympthsical]

40. It's ok

The geography teacher gave me permission to go to the bathroom.

[SocialDemocrat61]

47. Doesn't answer the question

Please post a link to where someone in DU said what you claimed.

[Silent Type]

44. Exactly.

[senseandsensibility]

49. Straw man arguments

can be funny, but not very convincing when applied to the actual facts. Media critiques on DU are nothing like that and your characterization of them is a put down of other DUers who are well meaning. If you have facts to counter what they say, providing them might be more effective.

[Sympthsical]

54. Here's a fact

There are two months until the election. If something as anodyne as Dana Bash is going to result in this kind of frenzied response, I'd highly suggest people pace themselves.

It's going to get a lot worse.

Furthermore, I find this reaction to be distrustful towards our candidate. VP Harris and Gov. Walz acquitted them extremely well and had pitch perfect answers for the questions being asked.

Devolving into a rage-tinged panic does not signal faith in our candidate. I knew Harris would do excellently no matter what. She's tough. She can handle the dread satanic lord that is *checks* uh, CNN.

I think it's far more insulting to everyone in our party to lack sufficient faith in our highly capable nominee that this kind of helicopter parent posturing in the wake of what was a fairly bland interview is going to be the norm going forward.

I trust Harris to do well. I'm extremely optimistic about things. Which is probably why I am not sharing in the hourly outrage.

People should trust her along with me and not feel the impulse to body themselves between her election and anything even mildly adversarial.

[senseandsensibility]

55. Rage tinged panic? Frenzy?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

[Sympthsical]

64. Well, let's see

*counts*

I'm just sayin.

[Bev54]

61. That is not what people are doing, this has been and exercise that proves what many of

us have been saying for a long time. Skip the legacy media and interview with those that have more viewers. CNN, NYtimes and others only interview for themselves and speak to each other. The rest of the population are not watching or reading them. This interview was a perfect example of why, they are not serious.

[Bev54]

59. So furthering Trump's stupid talking points and trying for gotcha questions is ok with you?

Good to know.

[Sympthsical]

66. Here's what people are missing

This CNN stuff and whether or not the questions were precisely, exactly, completely how one would prefer them worded? Is inside baseball. It is the realm of the terminally online, the twitter reliant, and the media insulars. The commentariat tackling it all day at great length makes sense, because this is their world. This is all they do all day.

The average voter? They're still walking into the stadium while teams are throwing spittle-flecked invective from the dugout.

Voters don't pay attention that much, nor that early. We're getting around to Labor Day. Things are percolating. And they hear the broad strokes, the crazy shit Trump says, whatever catches fire enough to actually send smoke over their rather tall fences. They heard things about black jobs, Trump's really weird racial shit, and a couple other issues.

And that's what the average voter wants to hear about - the things they've actually heard about. Trump's crazy penetrates. Even people who follow politics almost not at all end up hearing what he says because it's so completely wacky. They want a response.

And our nominee nailed it. Knocked it out of the park. Walk off home run just as the crowd is getting situated.

I have never in my life seen so many people be so disgruntled when their team just played a flawless inning.

There are eight and a half more innings in this one. Don't need to start screaming bloody murder at the umps just yet. We're gonna be here a while.

[Bev54]

69. The nominee nailed it, in spite of the stupidity of the questions.

She does not need to be subjected to the most ridiculous questions to do that. Get an adult in there that will ask substantive questions and she will do even better. This was a win for Harris and Walz but highlighted once again why she should ignore the MSM. They are not even taking this election seriously, when they are asking questions that they did. I hope from here on in they ignore the legacy media and go for other more honest media that will ask tough but relative questions to showcase what they want for the country and not just how good they are at answering stupid questions.

[Gaytano70]

33. I agree. Some of the questions were obviously just sensationalist, but in general....

...Lester and George and ESPECIALLY Jake could learn a thing about not being a jerk when interviewing and asking questions (insipid as they may be).

[RussBLib]

34. I agree, in general

....my lasting impression was "ho hum." Bash was respectful enough, didn't cut them off, and it didn't "feel" adversarial to me. There were no gaffes, no "did you hear what they fucking said!?" but that's a feature of Trump and his distortion of reality. Trump has to be outrageous. Harris and Walz, like Biden, offer a calmer, saner experience.

Ideally, I think they should have Harris and Walz interviewed separately.

Overall, no harm done. Now what will the GOP cook up to whine about next?

https://russblib.blogspot.com

(Disclaimer: I think I missed a couple of minutes of the interview. Guess I should watch it again.)

[RANDYWILDMAN]

35. fine with it, but...

wanna see the msm actually corner and make the orange loser in anywhere close to exactly the same way instead of his podium blowjob fest where he just bloats and they all run home thanking him tirelessley for the access

[Think. Again.]

41. I didn't bother watching it because the choice is between trump or Harris.

[Rstrstx]

50. It was about like the other lazy interviews of the past couple of decades

The media has gotten intellectually lazy and just prefers to go with talking points, and so the candidates have to answer with talking points. No real substance comes out of any of these circuses.

Best moment of the interview was when Kamala said “next question”, it was the perfect backhanded jab.

[femmedem]

52. I didn't see the full interview, but from what I saw, I agree.

I think it's fair to ask politicians questions based on what's circulating on rightwing media because it gives a candidate the chance to respond and set the record straight.

Do I think it could have been meatier? Yeah. But I didn't think it was unfair or a hit job.

The only question she asked that I take issue with had to do with how she would differentiate herself from Biden. (I can't remember the exact wording.) While she is still serving as his VP, it's beyond awkward for her to publically disagree with his policies.

[LAS14]

53. I agree. As someone put it in another thread, "She asked the questions people want answers to."

I would include in that category the stupid obsession with Walz's "missspeaking" and Harris's late aoption of blackness

They are things that some people want answers to. Maybe undecideds.

[Demobrat]

56. I have never watched Dana before that I recall,

so I have nothing to compare it to, but I thought she seemed overawed by Kamala and a little subdued. She went in there with a list of questions to ask and she asked them, but she didn’t badger or interrupt. When Kamala said “Next question” I thought she was going to cry.

I think she was intimidated. Others saw it completely differently. That’s how it goes.

[senseandsensibility]

62. That's an interesting take

and I agree that there was nothing wrong with her demeanor and she was polite. But most of the criticism I've read is not about that, it is about the RW slant of her questions.

[Cirsium]

72. that is backward

You say "I know bashing the media is popular here."

The mass media constantly bashes us. We should resist that and fight back.

Repeating statement made by Trump and then asking for a response is a way to allow Trump to frame the issues and to determine which issues are important. You may be OK with that for whatever reason, but people here are fully justified in criticizing that sort of lazy and biased excuse for journalism. Worse, it is dishonestly and deceptively biased to fool people into thinking it is "fair and balanced." We have a right to expect better.

Do you think that whether or not Harris is Black is an issue? Trump thinks so. Bash thinks so. Bash asks us all to assume that it is important, that it is a thing. That benefits Trump and hurts - bashes - all of us.

[Cha]

74. Rec.. Well said.. TY!

[betsuni]

75. Yes, and saying these things Trump says are "what people want answers to" -- why would the average

voter know everything Trump says and all the conspiracy theories and rumors on right-wing media unless they spend a lot of time consuming that garbage? Those types aren't going to believe anything a Democrat says anyway.

Democratic voters don't need answers to Trump's same old playbook racism and craziness. Who needs these answers? Nobody really. Just a way to bash Democrats and cover them negatively, for whatever reason even if it's just habit.

[republianmushroom]

73. Opinions are like belly buttons everybody has one, here is another.

Zerlina Maxwell: Only 4 questions from Dana Bash weren't a GOP attack or talking point in the form of a question

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219401936

There is more to journalism that reciting RW talking points and asking Dems to respond

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219401903

[tishaLA]

76. I agree. VP Harris knew Bash would ask

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2024, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

About the repub criticisms of her, she was prepared for those questions, and Bash gave her the opportunity to respond to them without interrupting her.

The repub reaction to the interview --disappointment that VP Harris handled it easily -- should tell us everything we need to know.

[oldmanlynn]

78. She did OK, but

She essentially asked questions like they were right out of a Republicans playbook