Should networks air President Trump's speeches and press conferences live?

[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.

 

[trixare4kids]

I see that the new strategy coming from the left is to call President Trump a liar no matter what he says.

I'd love to see the left live up to their own standards for one of their own team members...Call them out for their lies.

Remember when?
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think that you have to control your borders.”

- SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON -

“It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

- PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON -

“Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made -- putting more boots on the Southern border than at any time in our history and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.”

- PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA -

“When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose. If you don't think it's illegal, you are not going to say it. I think it is illegal and wrong, and we have to change it.”

- SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER -

 

[Superfly]

As long as they run about a 20 second delay, so they can real-time fact check, and then allow time for a news conference after the fact, for his "alternative facts" to be vetted, I'd say OK. I mean, watching this shouldn't be any worse than watching any other fake reality TV bull****.

If they can't real-time fact check, though? Nope. He is a known liar. 7,000 lies in two years means he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.

 

[MrShangles]

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.

I’ll pass this along to the Americans that have had their children murdered by illegal immigrants, it should show them how much you care about your fellow Americans.
If Trump says illegals murder Americans, is that considered a lie in liberal land?
How many Americans are you willing to let get killed before it’s a bad thing? Or maybe if it was one of your family members, think about that one please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Airyaman]

As Nate Silver pointed out, only ~35% of people polled over the course of the last several months believe Trump is honest. That means that ~65% will be wary of anything he says tonight, without the need for fact-checkers.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Worrying about the perception of fact checking him in real time ignores the unique reality of this President's dishonesty. This isn't an issue of the media holding politicians to account, but of this specific President creating chaos through anti-truth. Trump's anti-truth isn't the media's fault, except so far as the media chooses to enable him by giving his anti-truth unfettered air time.

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.)

Engaging Trump directly has shown not to be productive in any way. His responses would merely be more ranting and lying without being any kind of coherent response to the followup question.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As Nate Silver pointed out, only ~35% of people polled over the course of the last several months believe Trump is honest. That means that ~65% will be wary of anything he says tonight, without the need for fact-checkers.

That is higher than trust in media polling.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...utlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false

 

[Cardinal]

I’ll pass this along to the Americans that have had their children murdered by illegal immigrants, it should show them how much you care about your fellow Americans.
If Trump says illegals murder Americans, is that considered a lie in liberal land?
How many Americans are you willing to let get killed before it’s a bad thing? Or maybe if it was one of your family members, think about that one please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your post is the kind of hysterical rhetoric that results from Trump's disinformation campaign, and is a good example of why Trump should be fact checked in real time. When the White House talks about 4000 terrorists being caught at the border, about Mexicans being rapists and murderers and caravans containing ISIS members, your post is the result.

How much fear would he be able to drum up if he told the nation that illegal immigrants at our Southern border was at its lowest number since the 1970's. Or what if he told the nation tonight that undocumented immigrants accounted for a 1/3rd of the crimes committed by native born citizens per capita? If Trump were merely naive or ignorant, either of these facts would have to stray...if only by accident....into the path of anti-truth he regularly delivers. But they don't, which is why one can only conclude that he's deliberately engaged in disinformation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

The idea that the public should see a different version of a POTUS speech based on which media outlet presented it "live" is a bad idea.

Trust in media was once at 74 percent in 1976 in the post-Watergate reporting era, according to Gallup.

That number dropped to 32 percent in 2016, the last time Gallup polled on the question. Just 14 percent of Republicans said they trusted the media in that poll.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...utlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false

 

[Cardinal]

The idea that the public should see a different version of a POTUS speech based on which media outlet presented it "live" is a bad idea.



https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...utlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false

Yours is a trump supporter argument because it assumes that the news is fake, out to get Trump, and therefore not to be trusted over Trump's own word. These are Trumpist positions. As I said, trump supporters are not the target demographic for fact checking because they are hopelessly lost to propaganda.

 

[mike2810]

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.

Are you proposing this be the practice for all future Presidents / politicians? Would you apply the delay and fact-checked the speech for any rebuttals that are aired?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yours is a trump supporter argument because it assumes that the news is fake, out to get Trump, and therefore not to be trusted over Trump's own word. These are Trumpist positions. As I said, trump supporters are not the target demographic for fact checking because they are hopelessly lost to propaganda.

I am far from being a Trump supporter. I "assume" news media bias because I see news media bias, as do most people.

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

LOL. All presidents engage in disinformation in order to push their agendas and they also do live prime time broadcasts to the American people in order to do it. Nothing new there. Your post shows your hyper-partisanship. Not even the Big Three would agree with you and not broadcast because, as much as they lean to the left, they aren't as hyper-partisan as you are. I'm sure they will air a 15 minute rebuttal though. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[Irwin Corey]

AbsaByGodLutely. Like it or not (for most people not) and for better or worse (for most people worse) he is pResident (never has come close to being Presidential but he is the Resident of our white house well at least his porcelain office from which he tweets).

So, yes, he deserves the chance to talk to the people he was elected to govern (not that he has governed the nation - he's payed lip service to his base and been the campion of the rich - but, so far, he's never tried to be the leader of us all).

Besides it will be interesting to see him try to talk to the whole nation instead of his "devoted base"; this will be a first. Which is pretty sad when you think about it. He's been flapping his jaws to a select and very controlled few since 2015 (???) yet this is the first time since becoming pResident that he's addressed us as a Nation. :roll:

I expect his speech to be a temper tantrum that plays to his base and will be short on fact and chock full of lies, but, "Hope springs eternal", he could actually step up and for a shinning moment show that even he can be a leader.

"IT COULD HAPPEN"

 

[Airyaman]

That is higher than trust in media polling.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...utlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false

So the message is that everyone lies!

 

[ttwtt78640]

So the message is that everyone lies!

Nope, the message is that live broadcasts of POTUS speeches should remain so (even for Trump). The press has plenty of time to fact check and rebut anything that the POTUS says and need no special formats (just for Trump).

 

[Taylor]

The fact checkers should also be fact checked in real time. And those guys should have another group fact them *them*.

Or, people could learn to think for themselves. Do their own research. Chew their own food.

 

[ttwtt78640]

LOL. All presidents engage in disinformation in order to push their agendas and they also do live prime time broadcasts to the American people in order to do it. Nothing new there. Your post shows your hyper-partisanship. Not even the Big Three would agree with you and not broadcast because, as much as they lean to the left, they aren't as hyper-partisan as you are. I'm sure they will air a 15 minute rebuttal though. Nothing wrong with that either.

Actually, there will be something new here - this will be Trump's first live televised address to the nation.

 

[Cardinal]

Are you proposing this be the practice for all future Presidents / politicians? Would you apply the delay and fact-checked the speech for any rebuttals that are aired?

Read the entirety of the OP.

 

[trixare4kids]

Some key points already fact checked, Trump should be mentioning tonight but by all means, fact check him in real time again.

Let's ALSO find out why in 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, voted to pass legislation that provided $46 billion to build a physical barrier on the border and yet now don't want to work with the president by giving him a measly 5.6 billion. They call his border fence, wall, barrier, enforcements "immoral." Maybe when giving their rebuttal to Trump's 'alleged' lies in his speech tonight they can explain why they talk out of both sides of their partisan mouths.

 

[Cardinal]

I am far from being a Trump supporter. I "assume" news media bias because I see news media bias, as do most people.

Take it to the "Media Bias" subforum.

 

[Cardinal]

AbsaByGodLutely. Like it or not (for most people not) and for better or worse (for most people worse) he is pResident (never has come close to being Presidential but he is the Resident of our white house well at least his porcelain office from which he tweets).

So, yes, he deserves the chance to talk to the people he was elected to govern (not that he has governed the nation - he's payed lip service to his base and been the campion of the rich - but, so far, he's never tried to be the leader of us all).

Besides it will be interesting to see him try to talk to the whole nation instead of his "devoted base"; this will be a first. Which is pretty sad when you think about it. He's been flapping his jaws to a select and very controlled few since 2015 (???) yet this is the first time since becoming pResident that he's addressed us as a Nation. :roll:

I expect his speech to be a temper tantrum that plays to his base and will be short on fact and chock full of lies, but, "Hope springs eternal", he could actually step up and for a shinning moment show that even he can be a leader.

"IT COULD HAPPEN"

Read the OP.

 

[upsideguy]

I’ll pass this along to the Americans that have had their children murdered by illegal immigrants, it should show them how much you care about your fellow Americans.
If Trump says illegals murder Americans, is that considered a lie in liberal land?
How many Americans are you willing to let get killed before it’s a bad thing? Or maybe if it was one of your family members, think about that one please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really should read up on this issue. You are very poorly informed if you think that Illegal aliens are prone to criminal behavior. They actually commit far less crimes than our native population.

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/6076...l-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime
https://www.politifact.com/californ...-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/
https://www.businessinsider.com/undocumented-aliens-violent-crime-murder-statistics-data-2018-8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.663c7bf29db5

This makes you whole post a fail because your assumptions are incorrect. If you think I am wrong, then kindly produce credible third party evidence that supports your claim (like I just did that says you are wrong), otherwise there is no need to respond to a cause / effect that does not exist.

Moreover, border crossings are about 10% of what they were 10-15 years ago. This whole issue has been "trumped" up and bought hook, line and sinker by those that don't know the issue. Don't be one of those people. Please study up!

 

[Cardinal]

I wonder how many people are voting without having read the OP. I'm going to guess "More than a few."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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.

Its the networks liberty to air it or not.