Should networks air President Trump's speeches and press conferences live? (1 Viewer)

[Cardinal]

By now a reasonable person could conclude that Trump is engaging in what can only be considered a deliberate campaign of disinformation. If the barrage of lies could be explained by naivete or ignorance, the laws of odds would demand that he tell the truth a simple majority of the time since even a naive or ignorant person would technically share the same fundamental reality as the rest of us, and therefore tell the truth more frequently. To make falsehoods a majority of the time can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

From that, we can argue that its the duty of news outlets to inform, and that airing the President's speeches live necessarily results in a disinformed public. News outlets can have it both ways by both airing the President's speeches, but having a five or ten minute delay (or whatever amount of time is necessary) in order to fact-check the President as viewers are watching at home. The consequence of not doing so is that once the lie is told without immediate correction, the desired narrative of the President accomplishes its result and dislodging that narrative is often impossible.

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

-Jonathan Swift

So for this President (there is no comparison to other Presidents when it comes to sheer volume and frequency of deception so this question would only apply to Trump), should networks continue to air his speeches and press conferences live?

Since inauguration, Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading statements, which is probably more than every President in history combined.

 

[upsideguy]

By now a reasonable person could conclude that Trump is engaging in what can only be considered a deliberate campaign of disinformation. If the barrage of lies could be explained by naivete or ignorance, the laws of odds would demand that he tell the truth a simple majority of the time since even a naive or ignorant person would technically share the same fundamental reality as the rest of us, and therefore tell the truth more frequently. To make falsehoods a majority of the time can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

From that, we can argue that its the duty of news outlets to inform, and that airing the President's speeches live necessarily results in a disinformed public. News outlets can have it both ways by both airing the President's speeches, but having a five or ten minute delay (or whatever amount of time is necessary) in order to fact-check the President as viewers are watching at home. The consequence of not doing so is that once the lie is told without immediate correction, the desired narrative of the President accomplishes its result and dislodging that narrative is often impossible.

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

-Jonathan Swift

So for this President (there is no comparison to other Presidents when it comes to sheer volume and frequency of deception so this question would only apply to Trump), should networks continue to air his speeches and press conferences live?

As much as it will be a complete farce as a POTUS speech and will need to be extensively fact checked, he is the POTUS. I do believe he is entitled to this conduit to get his "message" out to the people, as packed with lies, as we know it will be. If Trump chooses to embarrass himself in this way, that is his right.

I do believe the Dems "equal time" is every bit as vital to our democracy.

I know it will be a incredible waste of time. I just hope there is a Popeil's Pocket Fisherman infomercial on another channel. That, at least, will have fewer lies and a better point.

 

[Cardinal]

As much as it will be a complete farce as a POTUS speech and will need to be extensively fact checked, he is the POTUS and is entitled to this conduit to get his "message", as pact with lies as we know it will be, out. I don't like, but I will defend his right to it.

Then you misunderstood the OP. A ~5 minute delay in order to fact check him doesn't preclude him from being aired.

 

[Fledermaus]

By now a reasonable person could conclude that Trump is engaging in what can only be considered a deliberate campaign of disinformation. If the barrage of lies could be explained by naivete or ignorance, the laws of odds would demand that he tell the truth a simple majority of the time since even a naive or ignorant person would technically share the same fundamental reality as the rest of us, and therefore tell the truth more frequently. To make falsehoods a majority of the time can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

From that, we can argue that its the duty of news outlets to inform, and that airing the President's speeches live necessarily results in a disinformed public. News outlets can have it both ways by both airing the President's speeches, but having a five or ten minute delay (or whatever amount of time is necessary) in order to fact-check the President as viewers are watching at home. The consequence of not doing so is that once the lie is told without immediate correction, the desired narrative of the President accomplishes its result and dislodging that narrative is often impossible.

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

-Jonathan Swift

So for this President (there is no comparison to other Presidents when it comes to sheer volume and frequency of deception so this question would only apply to Trump), should networks continue to air his speeches and press conferences live?

Since inauguration, Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading statements, which is probably more than every President in history combined.

Is a Presidential speech newsworthy?

 

[tres borrachos]

I plan to watch it. It'll rival The Bachelor for porn.

 

[Cardinal]

I plan to watch it. It'll rival The Bachelor for porn.

If even one network aired the speech with a delay and fact-checked the speech in real time, I believe that network would go home with the ratings prize.

 

[upsideguy]

Then you misunderstood the OP. A ~5 minute delay in order to fact check him doesn't preclude him from being aired.

No, I am not suggesting that its fact checked prior to being aired or that there be a fact check delay. It should be live, without edits. I don't believe we should be censuring our President in any fashion. He has a right to show us his ignorance and deceit in its rawest form.

I was only acknowledging that it will be riddled with lies. It ultimately needs to be fact checked (after the speech is over) in the analysis, which of course it will be by all the pundits. It would be good if the networks fact check immediately that the conclusion of this, as I am sure they will.

The risk, of course, will be those who only watch him and turn off the rest, which is pretty much what his supporters do. In the end, this is just a Trump campaign rally over the air.

 

[Amelia]

With Trump you need a delay for language. That could serve as a delay for fact-checking. It would be remarkable and amazing if a network would be honest about how Trump's complete disregard for truth is what is prompting the delay, but of course they cannot be so candid. They need to be diplomatic about it so as not to make the story about themselves.

Definitely time needs to be scheduled for response.

 

[Praxas]

By now a reasonable person could conclude that Trump is engaging in what can only be considered a deliberate campaign of disinformation. If the barrage of lies could be explained by naivete or ignorance, the laws of odds would demand that he tell the truth a simple majority of the time since even a naive or ignorant person would technically share the same fundamental reality as the rest of us, and therefore tell the truth more frequently. To make falsehoods a majority of the time can only be explained by deliberate deceit.

From that, we can argue that its the duty of news outlets to inform, and that airing the President's speeches live necessarily results in a disinformed public. News outlets can have it both ways by both airing the President's speeches, but having a five or ten minute delay (or whatever amount of time is necessary) in order to fact-check the President as viewers are watching at home. The consequence of not doing so is that once the lie is told without immediate correction, the desired narrative of the President accomplishes its result and dislodging that narrative is often impossible.

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

-Jonathan Swift

So for this President (there is no comparison to other Presidents when it comes to sheer volume and frequency of deception so this question would only apply to Trump), should networks continue to air his speeches and press conferences live?

Since inauguration, Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading statements, which is probably more than every President in history combined.

No, they shouldn’t air it live and here’s why. The FCC. There will always have to be a delay in case a president (or anyone else) drops a swear word and with Trump, you never know. He claims the media are the “enemy of the people” so if it were live he might drop some swear words just out of spite to get these networks fined.

Additionally there should be a counter put in the right bottom of the screen that counts how many lies and misleading statements he has said in the speech.

 

[tres borrachos]

If even one network aired the speech with a delay and fact-checked the speech in real time, I believe that network would go home with the ratings prize.

This I can fully agree with!

 

[Praxas]

Is a Presidential speech newsworthy?

The OP was talking live. I.e. without any delay in it.

 

[haymarket]

I plan to watch it. It'll rival The Bachelor for porn.

One should never use Trump and porn in same comparison. According to those who would know first hand, Trump comes up short in that comparison.

 

[Praxas]

No, I am not suggesting that its fact checked prior to being aired or that there be a fact check delay. It should be live, without edits. I don't believe we should be censuring our President in any fashion. He has a right to show us his ignorance and deceit in its rawest form.

I was only acknowledging that it will be riddled with lies. It ultimately needs to be fact checked (after the speech is over) in the analysis, which of course it will be by all the pundits. The risk, of course, will be those who only watch him and turn off the rest, which is pretty much what his supporters do. In the end, this is just a Trump campaign rally over the air.

So if the president swears, then the stations should not be held accountable right?

 

[Praxas]

One should never use Trump and porn in same comparison. According to those who would know first hand, Trump comes up short in that comparison.

Pinky swear? :lamo

 

[upsideguy]

So if the president swears, then the stations should not be held accountable right?

Correct. How Trump chooses to embarrass himself is up to him. If chooses to do the speech naked, its his prerogative.

 

[tres borrachos]

One should never use Trump and porn in same comparison. According to those who would know first hand, Trump comes up short in that comparison.

They need to ensure he's on delay in case he wants to talk about ******s.

 

[Fledermaus]

The OP was talking live. I.e. without any delay in it.

Play it live.

 

[haymarket]

They need to ensure he's on delay in case he wants to talk about ******s.

Good point. You can never be sure with this guy.

 

[Praxas]

Yes...

Unfortunately that would not be the case though, so time delay is not only needed but required.

 

[Praxas]

Play it live.

I would agree if the FCC would excuse any vulgarities, swear words or videos they deem inappropriate but they don’t do that.

 

[Fledermaus]

I would agree if the FCC would excuse any vulgarities, swear words or videos they deem inappropriate but they don’t do that.

That has happened in awards programs IIRC.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then you misunderstood the OP. A ~5 minute delay in order to fact check him doesn't preclude him from being aired.

Because the OP is vague. What, exactly, is your "fact checking" plan and why does it require a broadcast delay? Facts can be (and are) checked now when Trump babbles in real time on Twitter or talks to reporters.

Do you intend to have each media outlet run bottom of the screen text banners (crawlers?) to blurt out their own (editorial?) fact checker's interpretation of the words spoken by the POTUS?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Is a Presidential speech newsworthy?

Factual news and information, yes. Lies, damn lies, fake news, self-aggrandizing blather and bull****, no.

 

[Cardinal]

Because the OP is vague. What, exactly, is your "fact checking" plan and why does it require a broadcast delay? Facts can be (and are) checked now when Trump babbles in real time on Twitter or talks to reporters.

Do you intend to have each media outlet run bottom of the screen text banners to blurt out their own (editorial?) fact checker's interpretation of the words spoken by the POTUS?

Just for the record, fact checking him in real time has been done before, but it's an exhausting process when the speech is being aired live.

https://www.nhpr.org/post/real-time-fact-check-president-trumps-state-union-address#stream/0

Your question implies a distrust of fact checking and the media in general, and implies that fact checking would be done for the purpose of dissuading trump supporters from accepting Trump's lies. Trump supporters are completely lost to propaganda, and are therefore not the targeted demographic for whom fact checking would benefit.

 

[Mach]

Maybe, however I think if it's done as a direct response to Trump, on the eve of a Trump speech, it will be seen as a partisan attack on Trump, and not a reasonable, proactive change to the system (how media covers presidents).
It will lose its effectiveness, and possible have the opposite/backlash effect. Furthermore, if Fox carried it live and others didn't, it would further the divide, and put the stations that censored it, at greater risk.

We do need a lot of reforms IMO to our government and how it interacts with other institutions, as a direct result of Trump's attempts to ruin everything. But we have to do them, I feel, in a long-term, methodical, bi-partisan way at some point. If we do them as a knee-jerk, it may not have the desired effect.

I would prefer to see something like this:
- uncensored speech
- a set number of people allowed to ask follow-up questions and comment on the responses (who may have real time fact-checking in their ear) directly to the president.
- whatever you want after (opposite party air-time, fact checking segments, etc.)

The issue I have is that if someone in front of you, tried to convince you of something stupid, you would call them out on it, in real-time, to their face, and their response would be telling. They could "lose" the engagement.
If Trump just gives a speech and then is gone...he can't really "Lose" the public speech per se. He can be ridiculed later for it, but it doesn't hold the same risk.

Just my 2 cents.