I've been hearing a lot about how debate moderators and interviewers should slam Trump...
for his nonstop bullshitting. But, I'm not sure they are entirely to blame.
For one thing, who decides just which alleged lies to jump on? Interviewing is not easy, and it's tough to get someone like Trump to stay on topic. I've heard some really good interviewers over the years just give up with him. So, do we double the length of the interview (a real problem with TV schedules) to fact check, or just keep asking the same question until he answers?
Politicians have known for years that when you get hit with a tough question, just answer a different one. Ed Koch was a master at this, and if you listen closely, the present Senate is full of them, too. Trump is actually pretty crude at this, which is why we notice. He makes up for lack of skill by just talking forever. He also tends to do it a lot more than everyone else because EVERY question is a tough one for him.
Part of the problem is that we do have our own responsibilities to be able to parse out the bullshit in political talk. It's not just Trump, it's everyone running. Then, I've noticed a lot of "I caught the bullshit, but others might not." Well, that might be true sometimes, but if it is, just who is responsible for educating those ignorant masses who don't catch on as fast as us politically savvy types? It is a problem with the human condition that we are all suckers for the hard sell.
As far as moderators go-- their job is not to fact check except possibly the most egregious errors. Their job is to keep the discussion going and it's the participants who should be watching out for errors and bullshit. And if there's any post-debate discussion, that's where the egregious mistakes should be mentioned by the press. Most of the time we disagree with Trump, it's over some idiotic opinion of his or some bold, unsupported statement which can't really be fact checked anyway,
= new reply since forum marked as read
