I think Matt makes the mistake that a lot moral and ethical people make: assuming others have high standards as well. Hasan is one of those creeps who turns every discussion into combat to see who "wins" according to his own puny measure.
I think Matt makes the mistake that a lot moral and ethical people make: assuming others have high standards as well. Hasan is one of those creeps who turns every discussion into combat to see who "wins" according to his own puny measure.
I do agree with this. It is sad. He is of the media class and is noting the rot within like he can somehow save it from itself... get it back to a older better version of itself. But these people are not motivated at all by truth, facts... and evidence that holds a mirror up to show them how bad they screwed up the stories and narratives just makes them more committed to destroy those that would hold up a mirror.
These are not good people. They are ideological cult members and enemies of the country.
Agreed, but actually Hassan appeared to be using a lawyerтАЩs approach, in never asking a question he didnтАЩt already know the answer to. With that, one has to assume that all questions are leading and only by disrupting that flow can one have a chance to not look badly in such situations. For example, at the sound of the 1st question, I would have asked, тАЬbefore we launch into your scripted questions and for the benefit of your viewers who may not be familiar with what you are launching into, can set the context here? Will this be a discussion and questions on the full body of my part of the Twitter Files I released over the past months and your agreement or disagreement with my broad proposition here of their being a Censorship Industrial Complex that Twitter was being asked or coerced into participating, or will this be questions just on a couple of facts for which youтАЩd like some clarification? Because broadly speaking, you do agree that it could be viewed as a problem if govтАЩt agencies were making direct requests for Twitter to censor average AmericanтАЩs tweets, correct?тАЭ ЁЯШГ. He would try to cut off the statement, but youтАЩd still want to plow through it to make sure is part of the record of the conversation. That would have set a more even footed tone for anything discussed after this ЁЯШГ
I think that the standards of others, particularly when those standards are low, are the worst way to measure your own actions. It's always felt like Matt agrees with that sentiment.
I linked above to a Russell Brand interview on Morning Joe in which he just plowed his way through to making his points. Then he started imitating them. Ruthless. Of course, he is a consummate comedian and used to stand up comedy. Matt is a writer, first and foremost. Introverts like Matt do not fare as well in a machine gun delivery venue like the cable news. Tucker can be irritating with his machine gun delivery, but he gets his points across. Matt is our best investigative journalist. He should concentrate on raking the muck. Gather up the ammunition. Then let the Brands and Carlsons, Rogans and Murrays do combat. Or team tag as I suggested above. Here is a link to Brand explaining what happened before and during the interview. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/russell-brand-explains-morning-joe-578578/#!
IтАЩd also argue that going before Congress is an equally fruitless endeavor as it is purely agenda driven and those testifying are simply there for purposes of making one side or the otherтАЩs point, never to educate, clarify or provide objectivity regardless of the witnesses intention or expectation. They are whoever invited thermтАЩs window dressing and nothing more. The only way IтАЩd ever testify in front of Congress is with weeks of prepping on every one of their backgrounds, what theyтАЩve previously voted for, researching where their campaign financing has come from and memorizing the list of their major donors, just to level-set in the event of any antagonism ЁЯШГ
I think Matt makes the mistake that a lot moral and ethical people make: assuming others have high standards as well. Hasan is one of those creeps who turns every discussion into combat to see who "wins" according to his own puny measure.
I do agree with this. It is sad. He is of the media class and is noting the rot within like he can somehow save it from itself... get it back to a older better version of itself. But these people are not motivated at all by truth, facts... and evidence that holds a mirror up to show them how bad they screwed up the stories and narratives just makes them more committed to destroy those that would hold up a mirror.
These are not good people. They are ideological cult members and enemies of the country.
What country might that be, Frank?
Agreed, but actually Hassan appeared to be using a lawyerтАЩs approach, in never asking a question he didnтАЩt already know the answer to. With that, one has to assume that all questions are leading and only by disrupting that flow can one have a chance to not look badly in such situations. For example, at the sound of the 1st question, I would have asked, тАЬbefore we launch into your scripted questions and for the benefit of your viewers who may not be familiar with what you are launching into, can set the context here? Will this be a discussion and questions on the full body of my part of the Twitter Files I released over the past months and your agreement or disagreement with my broad proposition here of their being a Censorship Industrial Complex that Twitter was being asked or coerced into participating, or will this be questions just on a couple of facts for which youтАЩd like some clarification? Because broadly speaking, you do agree that it could be viewed as a problem if govтАЩt agencies were making direct requests for Twitter to censor average AmericanтАЩs tweets, correct?тАЭ ЁЯШГ. He would try to cut off the statement, but youтАЩd still want to plow through it to make sure is part of the record of the conversation. That would have set a more even footed tone for anything discussed after this ЁЯШГ
It really is all about winning the news cycle.
I think that the standards of others, particularly when those standards are low, are the worst way to measure your own actions. It's always felt like Matt agrees with that sentiment.
was thinking the same
I linked above to a Russell Brand interview on Morning Joe in which he just plowed his way through to making his points. Then he started imitating them. Ruthless. Of course, he is a consummate comedian and used to stand up comedy. Matt is a writer, first and foremost. Introverts like Matt do not fare as well in a machine gun delivery venue like the cable news. Tucker can be irritating with his machine gun delivery, but he gets his points across. Matt is our best investigative journalist. He should concentrate on raking the muck. Gather up the ammunition. Then let the Brands and Carlsons, Rogans and Murrays do combat. Or team tag as I suggested above. Here is a link to Brand explaining what happened before and during the interview. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/russell-brand-explains-morning-joe-578578/#!
IтАЩd also argue that going before Congress is an equally fruitless endeavor as it is purely agenda driven and those testifying are simply there for purposes of making one side or the otherтАЩs point, never to educate, clarify or provide objectivity regardless of the witnesses intention or expectation. They are whoever invited thermтАЩs window dressing and nothing more. The only way IтАЩd ever testify in front of Congress is with weeks of prepping on every one of their backgrounds, what theyтАЩve previously voted for, researching where their campaign financing has come from and memorizing the list of their major donors, just to level-set in the event of any antagonism ЁЯШГ
Excellent point and excellent suggestion for cutting through the doomed-to-fail format of these TV "debates."