MSNBC what's up?

[snowybirdie]

Why is Stephanie Rule letting Christie and Sessions go on and on apologizing for Trump? An entire half hour wasted listening to these two fools obfuscate and spin what's going on. And what the hell is the Salt Conference?

[mobeau69]

1. Strategic Arms Limitation conference?

[lunatica]

2. Economic stuff

SALT IS A GLOBAL THOUGHT LEADERSHIP FORUM DEVOTED TO UNLOCKING GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, ECONOMICS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, PUBLIC POLICY, TECHNOLOGY AND PHILANTHROPY.

[Soxfan58]

6. Then what were those two doing there.

[lunatica]

7. They're desperate to be relevant is my guess

All they did was be apologists for Trump. And not for Trump economic policies. They talked like Trump is totally normal.

I didn’t hear a single thing that SALT is related to.

[lapfog_1]

3. Suck A Lick-spittle's Tush?

[gordianot]

4. Disgusting I turned it off.

A total waste of time.

[Honeycombe8]

5. If you want guests to come on your show, you can't attack them.

You can correct any facts they misstate, or remind them they are not answering the question, but they are there to say their piece. They won't go on again, if they are attacked for saying what she knew they were going to say, before agreeing to have them on.

The best scenario is to have guests from both sides on, so they can correct each other's facts, and each make opposing arguments.

[lunatica]

8. This was at an economic conference

But why then would she have them on since they weren’t talking world economics?

[Honeycombe8]

12. I don't know. I didn't see the show. Maybe she didn't know they were lies.

But clearly there's a reason, right? Or she agrees with them. It's one of those two things.

[lunatica]

14. She called them on it

but Christie just talked over her reducing what she said or Trump say into ‘expressing an opinion only’. It was sleazy, as usual for him. For Sessions it was lies, as usual.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Well, good then. She called them on it.

The things I notice the most are when the guest doesn't answer the question. The host SHOULD, and usually does, stop their guest's speech and asks them to answer the question.

I saw this happen on PBS a couple of evenings ago. She just sat there when, after asking a question, the Republican just started making an argument about something that was NOT the question she asked. She didn't stop him.

Then he actually lied about two important facts about the Congressional investigation or something. Those were incorrect facts. She didn't correct him. So I assume SHE DIDN'T KNOW.

We assume the media knows more than we do about these things, but that's not necessarily true. They are really busy and work a lot of hours. It's entirely possible that WE are more knowledgeable about some things than they are.

[shanny]

11. Why invite known liars?

The value of being fair and balanced, of presenting both sides is obliterated when one side lies. Habitually.

I ask myself, WWWCD?*

*What Would Walter Cronkite Do?

[Honeycombe8]

15. Cronkite didn't have a talk show.

I didn't see the show, so can't say for sure. But it's either (1) she agreed with them; or (2) they didn't misstake FACTS, and she didn't view her job as to get into an argument with them on their theories; or (3) ???

Other poster said it wasn't her show, that it was an interview she did at a conference. So maybe that's why...she was just there to ask a few questions of various people at that conference.

Hosts generally don't get into arguments with guests, unless the show is set up that way. Bill Maher will, and it's understood when you go on that he'll treat you respectfully and fairly, but he will challenge you on your theories that he thinks are wrong, and such. For instance, he asked Beto how having lost the bid for Senate qualifies him to be President. A blunt, tough question.

Chris Matthews will also argue with guests, but then he usu. has guests on from both sides.

You know the saying: You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[shanny]

17. My point is, why have a talk show about NEWS, with "both sides" represented,

and pretend that it has anything to do with reality? My point is, I want the NEWS. My point is I want the FACTS. My point is I don't want some random person's OPINION, or even a famous person's opinion. My point is, the business model of the 24-hour "news" stations is a fraud, and it has infected the rest of our "news" coverage. Climate change is a classic example of the traps lurking here: scientific opinion is virtually 100% on the side of anthropogenic climate change, but viewers have to hear "both sides" because....why, exactly?

Fuckity-fuck that. eom

[Honeycombe8]

19. Talk shows are about varying opinions, usually.

Unless they are entirely one-side's viewpoint (there are some).

If you want straight news, you watch the "news." Not a talk show, which is opinion.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Wouldn't it be nice if they had to respond to the latest impeachment hearing developments?

This is what you get when your messaging is lacking. Mueller got everything he asked for from Trump, per Christie, so how could there be obstruction? Just sayin'.

[oasis]

10. Christie called out by Steph because he brutilized former acting FBI

director Andy McCabe for lying shortly after excusing Donald Trump for lying in excess.

[ffr]

13. Controvery sells. I agree, giving airtime for the indefensible, does a disservice

The fact that they're given any time or not cut off when it's a given they're just repeating talking points does a disservice.

[DeminPennswoods]

18. MSNBC sent her there on assignment

That's why they showed it.