this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024

-34 points (13.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers

3788 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-34

CNN's Dana Bash contends Harris avoided answering questions on fracking: 'That's kind of your answer' (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"That's why I wanted to ask the broader question, which is, if you've changed your position on X, Y and Z, how can you assure voters that those positions won't change again once they elect you?"

What a moronic concept. Why would anyone demand that their elected representative be monolithic in their positions? When you get new information, you sometimes need to adjust your positions to accommodate reality, but I guess that something the Republicans have never really been good at.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I think most people want the candidates they vote for to enact the same policies that they run for. Ain't nobody voting for somebody going like "I'm voting for this guy based on what he says about foreign affairs, I really hope he changes his mind when he's in office".

Not like changing your position or your mind or your policies aren't entirely unreasonable. Trump never got us out of Afghanistan, and Biden never got rid of cancer. However, you shouldn't make promises you can't keep. Making contradictory promises over the past five or ten years merits negative marks in that department.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s fox, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but this is a journalist, talking about another journalist’s response to a different journalist’s interview skills. This is not news, it’s cyclical punditry at its worst.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you mad that Dana said this? Or that Fox News mentioned that she said this? It's hard to tell what your critique of the article is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fair question. I’m bothered that this is a story at all. Journalists should never be the subject of the story unless they’ve done something wild and newsworthy, and this article is about a journalist’s opinion about another journalist interviewing a different journalist about their interview. It’s meaningless punditry about other pundits.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My issue with this take is that this is a journalist providing political analysis. I'm not sure why political analysis shouldn't be considered news to some degree. There was a similar article posted here about a pollster saying support for Trump has dried up: https://lemmy.world/post/19677605, and there are a bunch of articles here about celebrity support for Harris. I think Dana Bash saying something about Kamala Harris is equally newsworthy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

If it was a political scientist or some respected analyst, sure, I’d agree. But I have trouble seeing this as analysis when it’s a journalist being interviewed about what they think viewers should take away from a different interview they did. Interviews speak for themselves, that’s the whole point. We can be critical of the forcefulness of the journalist, of course, but Bash’s take on how she thinks the interview went and what viewers should think about Harris’ responses is not worthy of a whole news article, and is a good example of the rot in corporate media, in my opinion.

"I tried. I mean, you can't force somebody to answer a question, and I asked to follow up. I tried to get more into the nitty-gritty and get the answer. Sometimes, in my experience in doing interviews, is that once you ask once, fine. Twice, fine. Three times, if you don’t get a clear answer, that’s kind of your answer," Bash responded.

What does that actually add to our political discourse? It’s not some brilliant political analysis. Her answer, if she really needs to say anything, should just be “watch the interview, it speaks for itself.”

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago

Fox News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Fox News:

MBFC: Questionable - Credibility: Low - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-dana-bash-contends-harris-avoided-answering-questions-fracking-thats-kind-your-answer?dicbo=v2-ogleZq1

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support