US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[Fishbone Jones]

You mean the one where they were talking over each other? Usually the interviewer lets the interviewee answer the questions. Or, if they’re straying, wait until they finish, then push it back to what the interviewer’s original question was about.

Fox News and Bret Baier are still taking heat for the Kamala Harris interview - Poynter

Everyone knew she was stepping into unfriendly territory. But, especially compared to Fox News’ treatment of Donald Trump, it was downright hostile.

www.poynter.org

You mean like all the other interviewers that have had Trump in a similar position? Face it, people are just dumber for even listening to her in the first place. She has yet to mention a dollar value on any of her so called plans. She invoked Trump’s name something like 20 times in 23 minutes. She didn't answer a single question. You can't blame Fox because she's a fucking disaster. It wasn't Fox that shut the interview down to try save whatever dignity they thought she had left, it was her own handlers waving her off from the sidelines. Less than 25 minutes under the gun and she was losing her mind and getting snippy. Baier had no choice because he was just trying to get her to answer the questions, which she did exactly zero times.

 

[QV]

Harris is desperate and this interview did not help.

 

[Brad Sallows]

She has yet to mention a dollar value on any of her so called plans.

Short debates and interviews aren't useful fora for getting into many details other than broad intent and outline. "We'll raise taxes on X to pay for Y" is usually about as good as it gets; sometimes a well-prepared candidate can put numbers to it.

Baier had no choice because he was just trying to get her to answer the questions, which she did exactly zero times.

What's usually missing is a division into reasonable and unreasonable interjections-by-interviewers. Supporters inevitably complain none of it was merited; critics inevitably complain all of it was necessary. There has to be some amount of interviewer intervention which is acceptable; how much is it? Those who won't admit an amount greater than zero or be willing to lay down some qualitative thresholds ought be ignored.

Given how some politicians are learning to push back (eg. Poilievre, DeSantis, Vance), it's reasonable for interviewers to also push when interviewees try to avoid answering. Those people ought be supported by those who yearn for civil and useful exchanges of information; critics who whine about bullying ought be derisively dismissed.

Advice to interviewees can be generalized as "respect the interviewer", which includes showing up on time and meeting other agreed conditions, letting the interviewer control the interview, and not breaking off abruptly unless a time limit is breached or the interviewer says something grossly indecorous or impudent. Failure means the interviewee isn't up to the game.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What successes? She hasn't got any. You can't discuss what is non existent.

You absolutely can. It's called "Fiction", "Alternate History" and "Fantasy". All very popular discussion topics online.