And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if this -- and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. Let's turn the page on this. Let's not go back. Let's chart a course for the future and not go backwards to the past.
During the standard CNN 10:00 p.m. Eastern panel discussion, Scott Jennings, GOP strategist and network contributor, evidently accused Kamala Harris of predicting a bloodbath were she elected President CNN anchor Abby Phillip, determined to be fair and balanced, remarked.
Let's clear this up. You're referring to Trump's use of "bloodbath" when he was talking. He was talking_ I'm going to explain it to people because I think there's confusion about this. Use of the word "bloodbath" when he was talking about jobs in vehicle manufacturing jobs in the United States. Vice President Harris improperly and unfairly mischaracterized that as him saying there would be a bloodbath if he were elected.
MUST WATCH! CNN finally admits Kamala and their people have been lying about Trump's use of the word "bloodbath."
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 18, 2024
They must know Trump is winning... or else they wouldn't be suddenly fact-checking this. pic.twitter.com/6A6ArebSLv
Let's clear up your own statement, Ms. Phillip. Harris had stated that Trump's intention was a bloodbath if he were not elected, not if he were elected. Moreover, Phillip tried to clear up something that was, and is, not all that clear.
Campaigning in March 2024 for a US Senate candidate who went on to win the primary, Trump declared
If you’re listening, President Xi — and you and I are friends — but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now … you’re going to not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the cars to us, no. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected.
Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for
the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a
bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they’re not going
to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.
Trump was in fact speaking about auto manufacturing when he invoked the term "bloodbath." However, he stated that the bloodbath would be "for the whole" and immediately thereafter clarified "for the country." He added "that will be the least of it."
He then added "that will be the least of it" because, evidently, he is threatening something beyond a "bloodbath." Whatever that might be is unknowable. However, it at least appears that he meant something beyond a bloodbath.
If a news host chooses not to disregard facts in favor of an insistence upon "clearing up" the "confusion about this," she at least ought to leave room for the possibility that Mr. Trump meant, well, what he literally said. Nonetheless, in the interest of the fairness Phillip forswore, consideration should be given to the view of Republican Bill Cassidy as expressed the day after Trump's remark.
The Louisiana senator implied that Trump's words permit the listener, whatever his or her views, to interprets them as wished. He said Trump's rhetoric often "walks up to the edge" and "that kind of rhetoric, it's always on the edge, maybe doesn't cross, maybe does, depending upon your perspective."
A great news organization will not give a political candidate the benefit of the doubt if he is intentionally ambiguous. It will attempt to pin him or her down- and if it tries and is unable to do so, the default interpretation must be the less flattering. In this case, the network was uninterested in trying to determine definitively what Donald Trump was and additionally, one of its major players misinterpreted what he literally said.
Accuracy, not "fairness," should not be the highest priority of a news organization. Bending over backwards to appear balanced and non-partisan betrays the network's one-time slogan of "facts matter."
No comments:
Post a Comment