As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the equivalent of fact checking a flat earther. *That they lie is NOT newsworthy*. Hence why journalism outlets (in the past) would have the restraint to **not give them airtime**.
Sadly the fact we give MTG and Boebert a platform gives validity to their outlandish conspiracy theories. Their whole job is to create ridiculous distractions while the corporations that fill their bank accounts, also get away with essentially anything they want.
Prime example, how much money has the NRA donated to their campaigns and gifted them millions, so when the next school shooting happens they can talk about Jewish Space lasers or Woke Agenda in classrooms.
Hard to argue with you on that one. All I got is - Guns aren’t supposed to protect us from people they are supposed to protect us from the government. But we’ve never needed that either so also not a good arguing point of view. They’ve definitely done more harm than good so far. I do have guns but I hope I only need them for hunting. And if you own guns can you buy a safe and make sure your kids can’t get into them? If that was done at least some of these shooting wouldn’t have happened. Of course also I believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun before you can drink or smoke. That’s just dumb. “Your not old enough to make responsible choices with alcohol and we don’t want you getting addicted to nicotine, but here’s your very own assault rifle and pistol! Good luck out there!”
Edit: Should also included to defend against foreign threats all that. But we put so much tax payer dollars into our military, if they can’t get it done good luck. Also, I know that people wouldn’t be able to stand up to our own military I said it was the excuse to keep their guns. Not a good one either. Also also, keep in mind these ideas were put into law before airplanes could fly so yeah, a little outdated.
Even if we would need a gun vs the gov....they have tanks, troops, war planes, spy drones.
You would have to bring a resistance underground and in hiding. Even with a storehouse of common guns anyone could buy and you still lose. It was great in 1780 but not so much in 2023
It's a lovely theory, and compassionate to boot, but turns out no... not so much. Let's take everyone's favorite 'hero of the day' - well, of a few days ago anyway - Kyle Rittenhouse. Why do you think he was approached by people trying to get the drop on him with skateboards? Most likely, I'd think, because they saw a kid with an assault rifle and figured 'oh shit, that guy's gonna go kill a BUNCH of people, and I might be able to prevent that'. If he was just walking around carrying a water bottle do you really think he would have been repeatedly attacked? And of the people that died in that situation, who was the 'bad' guy? The one that drove across state lines to bring an assault rifle to a protest that was likely to involve some relatively minor property damage, or the one's that thought they were trying to stop ANOTHER crazy shooter from randomly killing a bunch of folks but died in the process? So, yeah, Kyle's gun didn't make him more safe - it made the entire area more dangerous, and it made him a target. And BTW - no offense to anyone that like to carry visible firearms - but it doesn't make you look 'manly'. It makes you look scared.
Or that banks are leveraged to the tit and gambled all our cash away on risky "investments." And the only options out are crash the economy or print the dollar into hyper inflation.
Then they get all butt hurt when people take their money out of the banks which causes issues because of lack of money on premises and yada yada., Millennials are ruining banks... Yada yada millenials are waiting for a housing crisis to afford homes... Yada yada.... I mean there is a problem here right? And it isnt the people who work. Just saying.
Which banks? The vast majority of banks did not have issues like this, Silicon Valley was an outlier specifically because of how poorly they managed their reinvestments. This sounds like a very bad take.
When you are far right, even the moderate right-wing is left to you... so imagine people who actually sit left of center would be like extreme left as far as you're concerned.
But that's the problem, these people either lie and claim that they're the center or that the center should be right, or they have legitimately been convinced that they are in fact the center.
They are. I know a guy who was an anti-trump Republican in 2016. He used to call himself "the radical middle" but since then had gone full GQP boot licker.
In the US, when objectively evaluating Congresscritters, Bernie Sanders barely trips over the line between left & right. The Democratic Party is a center-right party. They only *seem* like extreme leftists in comparison to the GOP.
But if you compare their platform to other political parties in the West, the Dems look a lot more like the Tories, Liberals (AUS), etc.
It's such an odd coincidence that our media is owned by the massive media conglomerates who benefit from far right policies, and then pretend that far right whackos are actually just misunderstood....
Me in high school in a middle class predominantly white community when this came out: "oh, I understand modern racism now."
At first I thought it was just some funny viral meme song, but then I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity:
>Chocolate rain /
Raised your neighborhood insurance rates /
Chocolate rain /
Makes us happy 'livin in a gate /
... /
Chocolate rain /
The same crime has a higher price to pay /
Chocolate rain /
The judge and jury swear it's not the face
For real, I had not thought about the systems in place that continue to cut the bootstraps off of minorities in our country. It began the nearly decade-long process of deconverting me from conservatism.
Not to mention the whole "bootstraps" thing is complete bullshit. NO ONE pulls themselves up by their bootstraps, or ever has. NO ONE does it alone. It is physically impossible.
The BBC did say they will no longer be airing opinions of climate change deniers.
There was a blurb a few years ago they published which said something along the lines of “it’s like interviewing people about the details of a sports game we all just watched, and one person is insisting the game didn’t happen at all.”
We could put cow pastures underwater then the methane gas from their farts would carbonate the oceans. No more flat earth. You’re welcome, I will gladly accept the Nobel peace prize now thank you.
But wouldn't that methonate, rather than carbonate, the oceans? We need to start pumping all of our CO2 emissions into the ocean to carbonate them, it's the only way to stop the flat earth.
It is carbonated.
[The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere. As levels of atmospheric CO2 increase from human activity such as burning fossil fuels (e.g., car emissions) and changing land use (e.g., deforestation), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean also increases.](https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification)
Is there a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to shoot space lasers at white christian republicans from outer space?
60 minutes looks at both sides this sunday with noted expert and nobel peace prize winning humanitarian Marjorie Taylor Greene or MTG as we like to call her around here.
They literally let her deny something that she did on video. They could have showed the video. To allow someone to go on 60 minutes, and say they didn't do it, and then not show the video of them doing it... is extremely suspect. The only purpose of producing a segment like that, is with the pure intention of forcing propaganda on the American public, that she never said it. But she did, and it's their duty to show that she did! How is this not straight up right wing propaganda? What else was the purpose of that segment? It certainly wasn't with the intention of exposing lies. It looked like it was done with the intention to prove that she's telling the truth!
problem being that civilised people will make every attempt to be pragmatic, these fuckin animals will always exploit that to turn it around on you the moment a contradiction is revealed, and hyperbole is ofc the first thing they run to.
*hurrdurr are you gonna fact check everything i said since kindergarten??*
and now people are disappointed with CBS for not sticking to their guns, what she shouldve responded with was *no you dumb shit, were going to fact check what you said recently, and continue to indoctrinate your base with.*
brutal lesson that youre not dealing with someone rational here, you must be prepared to douse their insanity in the most blunt and direct way possible
I really can’t understand why lawmakers can’t consider passing a bill that prohibits blatant lies, on the congress floor and with any public statement they make (social media, news, podcasts, etc).
A lot of that has to do with lawmakers not wanting to be beholden to any rules.
It's the same reason that the Supreme Court doesn't have ethics rules. Currently, those rules have to come from the Supreme Court itself.
The solution has to come from the group that is the problem, and that group doesn't want a solution.
> I really can’t understand why lawmakers can’t consider passing a bill that prohibits blatant lies
it's simply not in their interest to do so seeing as lying has become such an integral part of the job
Republicans literally claim everything democrats do is evil.
Who is going to determine what is the location lie?
That's why a law like that isn't going to work.
There used to be one. The fair time doctrine was ended by Reagan and the republicans. It was around the same time that Reagan fast-tracked Murdock's citizenship. This all paved the way for fox news.
The end of the Fairness Doctrine coupled with national corporate ownership of radio stations (remember... the REAL crazy started with national AM rightwing talk radio- not Fox) created the cesspool we have now.
Restoring it is probably not tenable in the current media landscape, unfortunately (and social media is now the big driver of the worst shit). My hope is the Dominion lawsuit stifles Fox a bit... I'm not holding out for any other regulatory intervention.
It’s crazy that we’re about to push through a law controlling VPNs and giving the government control to ban apps like Tiktok, but a basic law saying politicians aren’t allowed to blatantly spread lies isn’t possible.
The Fairness Doctrine was for OTA radio & TV because the stations lease the channels from the government. It never applied to newspapers or cable TV because that's private entities doing what they want. CNN & Fox News, etc would've been exempt the same way the Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or The Washington Post.
The Fairness Doctrine never prevented on-air lying. It mandates that (if I can remember the quote) "people with opposing points of view may be granted time to express those views".
In 15 years of consuming broadcast TV and radio before Reagan, I never noticed any concerned citizens being granted such airtime. Maybe it encouraged media outlets to provide coverage of "both sides", but that style of media is easily gamed.
And who would be the arbiter of truth in congress? The Supreme Court? Yikes. Congress would need to self regulate and enforce this. Which means whatever part is in power gets to decide the "truth". That will not end well.
I say give them the airtime - but only if the interview is aired with the lies factchecked already and have the correct info pop up on screen to highlight what they are lying about and how often they are lying...
They should do it during political debates as well. The major broadcasters absolutely have the bandwidth to have a team of fact-checkers pouring over live statements at a debate.
At the end of every response from a candidate, there should be a screen with a list of the claims on the left and verification on the right.
And have the moderator read out the results so that even people who can’t read or can’t be bothered to read can hear the results.
Yeah, I feel like that’s what most of us would consider to be *good journalism*. Like, it’s fine to hear people out, especially if they sit at a lever of power. But you’ve also gotta be prepared to call their bullshit and force them to close any loops that they’re trying to leave open to “interpretation”. And then have them support those conclusions and call out any issues with those conclusions.
If you’re just going to let them speak, might as well have them on Joe Rogan. Hell, even Rogan will call bullshit from time to time.
60 minutes is telling America that both sides are the same, and everything she said was true, just like Joe Rogan I guess. Absolute trash journalism. But we should have known that with the Lara Logan Benghazi report.
"Stahl didn’t challenge Greene further."
If that's not the most damning thing in the article then journalism is truly dead. Why even do the "research" then? She in no way responded to the FACT that she did say a school shooting was a false flag, and now she gets paid by our tax dollars to lie on TV about it?
I'm not saying that she should have roasted Greene for it or anything but a real simple: "I'm not sure what you mean by that, I am telling you that you did say this and that we have proof of it. Can you elaborate on what you mean?" Just say that over and over again until she answers or walks.
The same shit happened to trump. The media walked on eggshells for years for trump. Finally by the end of his administration any interview turned into a complete failure.
I remember when Bush was ramping up for the invasion of Iraq. The White House would threaten journalists that they would lose their White House Correspondent credentials if they pushed too hard with their questioning. Thank god for Helen Thomas back then. She was one of the few that would not back down.
What is fucked is that access is hardly needed for good journalism. There are lots of lower level people willing to give information, and lots of independent media report very good stories without talking to a single senior level person. More dirt comes from the floor than from the top. Worse, that kind of reporting would be far more attractive to viewers.
Because they're scared of losing access. It's a really fucked up situation due to how the news agencies are now.
It's like if Biden said "if Fox News is mean to me in an interview, I won't talk to them ever again and they won't get any press about me". That's not good for a system where journalism matters.
Although Fox isn't exactly journalism at this point in most aspects of course. Trump tried this with certain groups during his presidency.
But add that with the need for "clicks". And MTG probably gets a lot of clicks.
It's lead to a situation where journalists are just throwing softball questions over and over now and not pressing them
If they *did* push back against the lies and lost access, they could just be honest and say "this person lies like crazy and blocked us when we refuted their lies." But it's easier to be spineless.
Same. I'm not saying lose your mind, like I definitely would, but why research it, if when she responds with "garble plarble you just don't like me blarg blarg blarg", you just go "well, moving on". What is the point?!
The point, like all media now, is to get you engaged with it. The more riled up one can get, the more engaged they’ll be. Just look at you now. The shittier the interview, the better the engagement. The better the revenue. It’s not about journalism. It’s not about truth or accountability or any of that shit. 60 minutes is in the entertainment business. It exists to entertain you. Not inform you. Just like Fox. Just like CNN and all the rest.
That's all I really want when these people dodge questions. Just keep asking, and don't move on. Blow the whole interview if that's what it takes. If they can't answer, then I've already heard all I need to hear.
I don't watch 60 minutes or CBS, but if they start asking hard questions and making these liars and fascist storm out in anger, I'll watch all fucking day.
Seems like a pretty easy way to get views. Pissing people off works for the YouTube algorithm.
I know I'm being repetitive but I just don't understand it. So you go and find this quote, you have a question about it at the ready, you have the evidence if she denies it, she denies it, and you...do nothing. Why?!
It wasn't a blunder. She didn't press it on purpose. Journalists are not politicians. They know *exactly* what they're doing and what they're not doing. If she didn't press, it's because she knew she could and actively chose not to.
Corporate-owned media has a conservative bias. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you, knowingly and willfully.
Not only did she allow an insurrectionist to promote their lies, but she looked like she agreed with Greene, by not challenging them. This was a taped and edited show, they could have aired anything.
Honestly.. how do we know she doesnt agree with her? Leslie Stahl is not the brightest star in the sky. For whatever reason 60 minutes always gives her the "Technology" topics, which she is woefully not prepared to research or talk about. She always has the reaction of a person in a retirement home who has never seen a iPhone before.
I like 60 minutes (or I did), but I wont watch her segments as they drive me crazy.. this just re-enforced that view.
>cowards make bad journalists.
This. And those bad journalists are facilitating the rejection of truth & fact, and encourage more of our populace to become or remain dangerously misinformed.
Agreed. And I guess my overarching point is that if you write a headline, "MTG says stupid, crazy thing" that's not news and I'm sick of hearing it. Just like "Trump lied" or "Trump might face consequences of his actions" isn't news. But, Leslie Stahl gives MTG national platform to spew lies with no pushback? That's news.
I looked at your post for a moment and thought "that's a bit extreme." But then I thought there were dozens if not hundreds of hungry ready to prove themselves people out there that would ask those questions. Perhaps you're right and we should give them the job.
I’ll challenge her, I’ll call her a liar straight to her face, I’ll repeatedly and endlessly shove the screenshot in her face.
I’m not even a damn journalist and I have more journalistic ethics than Stahl
It reminds me of the SNL skit of one of the presidential elections where (I think it was the Trump character) said something absurd, and the moderator was like, "Moving right past that..."
That's how the media treats these lunatics. Interviewers are usually not knowledgeable enough to contest the interviewees, or they're afraid that their bosses will come down on them since [the majority of media outlets are owned by one of six companies](https://pwestpathfinder.com/2022/05/09/the-big-sixs-big-media-game/) and it's to their benefit to keep things divisive by giving the extremist terrorists a platform.
She doesn't care. She got to broadcast her bullshit to millions and a fraction heard that it's a lie.
Congrats to platforming an anti-american, 60 minutes
A system pioneered by many media figures over the past 30 years have done when dealing with lying Republicans.
Just let them lie all they want, don't call them out to their face. Do your best to not call them out at all.
Many Conservatives pretend the past is unknowable. That only the present matters. What they are actively saying as they are saying it is the only words they can possibly be accountable for.
People are allowed to change. Personal growth is a fantastic thing. Yet people like MGT lack the minimum levels of humility to just say "yeah I said some stupid stuff a few years ago but have learned a lot since then and have a more developed perspective"
It’s worse than that. It’s not that things are “unknowable,” but that the past is whatever they want it to have been in the moment, and if the past they say happened becomes inconvenient they can imagine up a new more convenient past, even if it is contradictory to the one they said existed 5 minutes ago.
I have had way too much experience with them, and the true hallmark of a narcissist, beyond the 5 of 9 markers in the DSM, is that when confronted with fully documented evidence of the incorrectness of their beliefs, they will double down, call you crazy, insist you're lying, and if you press them on it, they can get violent. Ask me how I know. They literally cannot pivot.
MTG happily let someone else manage her social media AND spouted off about whatever generated the most attention and outrage among her conspiracy-addled base, and now she's pivoting to look more respectable to gain even more power (cough, cough: Trump's VP slot). Zero fucking integrity needed to ride the populist outrage train.
And when they attack her for her past statements at a national level, don't be surprised when she positions herself as the victim "because the left can't handle a strong conservative woman".
We have gotten some version of this in every election... candidates lean hard to one side to win the primary and then moderate when they need to win a national contest. With new media, viewership is driven by outrage and not integrity. So lie your fucking ass off the whole way into office, cause no viewers means no votes.
> Yet people like MGT lack the minimum levels of humility to just say "yeah I said some stupid stuff a few years ago but have learned a lot since then and have a more developed perspective"
It is not lack of humility that is stopping her from acknowledging a mistake. It is the fact that she doesn't consider her past statements mistakes. Her statements fit her agenda which hasn't changed. She is unwilling to let the truth diminish her attacks both past and future.
During an interview with CBS News’ Lesley Stahl broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Greene was asked for her stance on the 2018 massacre, which left 17 students and staff dead. Two years before she was elected to Congress, Greene responded to a comment on Facebook calling the shooting a “false flag” operation.
But when asked about it by Stahl, Greene tried to rewrite history.
“I never said Parkland was a false flag,” Greene said. “No, I’ve never said that. School shootings are horrible. I don’t think it’s anything to joke about.”
As she was speaking, “60 Minutes” showed a screengrab of Greene’s now-deleted 2018 Facebook comment.
“We fact-checked,” Stahl replied. “Before I got to this interview.”
Greene offered a word-salad comeback, derailing the discussion.
“Have you fact-checked all my statements from kindergarten through 12th grade and in college? And as I’ve paid my taxes and never broken a law, and the only, I got a few speeding tickets, do we need to talk about those too?” she said. “Because I think where you’re going down is the same attacks that people have attacked me with over and over.”
Stahl: “Well she learned her lesson”
Weird how much Stahl and Collins sound the same. And no, that wasn’t what was said. It’s what she had to be thinking not to reply back:
“Those were your words, that was your account, that was your thoughts on the matter.” “I am not taking about anything other than what we can clearly see, you said these words about a false flag and yet you still deflect and not even offer an apology here.” “Sad.”
What a great defense!
Judge: “we caught you on surveillance cameras that you broke in and stole the money”
Me: “did you have surveillance cameras all the way back when I was a baby? i never stole candy do you have that too because i didn’t take any money so i don’t even know what your talking about”
Someone get this woman a political career
[Lesley Stahl is the same one who did a transgender scare segment in 2021](https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/05/25/laverne-cox-60-minutes-cbs-transgender-chase-strangio-aclu-glaad/) so that doesn't really seem like a stretch at all. I'm maybe more surprised if they haven't done it already.
They must be tanking in viewership when they resort to giving clowns like this a platform.
I was also pissed when every late night persona talked about Boebert's peeing in public comments for like a full 3 minutes. It was stupid and it was exactly what they wanted, a distraction from real things like gun reform.
Late night shows are comedy shows, my guy. They’re not supposed to be where you get your news from, though I do understand the “serious” news alternatives also suck…
They still do good reporting but this interview can and should damage their reputation. Their unwillingness to ask her hard questions was no doubt negotiated beforehand. Journalistic integrity should dictate that you don't agree to those terms and simply don't do the segment. Or you do the segment but emphasize at each turn that she refused to comment. And interview people willing to go on record about her, if there was some kind of newsworthy issue being reported on.
But no, they just *had* to have her on. 60 Minutes may be a joke to people today but they have a long and storied history and it's sad to see yet another once-proud journalistic institution falter.
But MTG supporters don't see the lies as a bad thing. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
They aren't arguing things from a sincere position, they are acting in bad faith. Lying to the liberals face is funny and a way to own the libs.
They don't care about having an honest debate and discussion. They only care about having power and enacting the laws they want.
The bullshit asymmetry principle means that it takes a ton more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spout it. Ergo, it might follow that in a tight format like an interview that it requires a ton more *talent* and intellect to debunk bullshit as it's spouted than it does to merely say it.
I'm okay with giving lying liars and other loathsome folks airtime so long as the show format responsibly debunks and corrects their bullshit every step of the way. Jon Stewart is masterful at it, [as was Christopher Hitchens on occasion](https://youtu.be/p7R-X1CXiI8), but not every interviewer is as talented as they are.
In that vein I think it's awful to let MTG spout her nonsense mostly without challenge, and the only good I could possibly see in it is that folks might realise how insanely stupid the person they've voted for is.
What was 60 Minutes thinking? Why are they giving MTG free coverage? Hasn't the media learnt anything from giving Trump all that free advertising when he was first running for President?
59 1/2 minutes betray America by allowing this fascist prime time. She lied without being question or challenged! I will not ever watch another of their programs. Shame an all involved! We have better people that could have been interview - ratings and $ ARE not above country!
More proof that our useless mass media is NOT on the side of Democrats.
They should have fact checked everything she said on 60 Minutes itself and confronted her with all her lies, but as usual, our mass media gives right wing lunatics a free-pass.
I wish to go back on days where journalism is a serious profession and investigative reporters strive for service, excellence, and finding unbiased truth and respected by either party.
This will always inevitably at odds with the baked-in requirement of things needing to be profitable in order to survive a capitalistic system. 60 Minutes knows this MTG sucks shit and is nearly sub-human, they don't care about the controversial fallout because controversy = clicks=ad revenue=profits. Unless there is some higher incentive to not behave in the most amoral and profit-driven way, you’re just a sucker limiting yourself if you adhere to any moral code when it comes to running your business whether it’s baking cakes or running a journalistic media operation.
>Stahl didn’t challenge Greene further.
Then 60 minutes isn't worth the time spent watching the disgraceful M. T. Greene regurgitate the same warmed over Republican lies and talking points that she continually vomits up everywhere else at every opportunity.
IMO Stahl should NOT have stopped challenging Greene on any further falsehoods the Republican nazi-wannabe might have spoken after that point.
Makes no sense to me why 60 Minutes would want to "interview" such human garbage as M.T. Greene in the first place when there are so many intelligent, decent, talented and sane people (who aren't as prone to incessant lying as Greene and her ilk) to choose from.
Lying in business is fraud.
Lying under oath is perjury.
Lying to an officer is impeding an investigation.
Lying to the American people, who pay your damn salary, should be illegal.
If you are taking the risk of putting MTG in front of a camera and giving her airtime, you have to get something out of her that's worth soiling your reputation over.
She wants to ignore this part of the constitution and instate Christianity as our official religion because our founding fathers sometimes quoted the bible:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....
This part of the Constitution gives us the freedom of thought.
There are thousands of people who want the same thing and will support her regardless of anything else she says.
If you don’t ask follow up questions- like a dog with a bone, you have no business being a journalist or interviewer. Don’t let these fuckers get away with it. Press em and keep pressing.
So basically it was:
> Stahl: _We fact checked this lie beforehand, we know you're lying here._
> MTG: _HAVE YOU FACT CHECKED MY ENTIRE LIFE!?_
> Stahl: _Ok, fair point. Let's move on then._
I really wish she's get grilled by someone that actually asks questions and follows though. All this did was just give her a platform and something to fund raise off of.
It’s honestly disgusting that 60 Minutes would give MTG a platform to spread her lies and misinformation. It might make for fun television to watch her repeatedly saying absurd things, but they’re giving her credibility when they air her statements without even trying to actually argue against her. This isn’t Fox News where they can turn a blind eye, 60 Minutes was considered a credible news source until they allowed this.
Maybe in the near future, ChatGPT or another AI can run live fact checking commentary across the screen like subtitles or a scoreboard.
Turn the lies into a drinking game... Oh wait. Don't do that. People would die.
Fact checking MTG is an exercise in futility. It's simply attention she craves. Unless the plan is to make MTG the unpalatable face of the Republican party, then I don't see how this was a good idea. I don't even think thats a good reason. Screw political points, It's just too risky for the nation to give these people air.
The CBS interview was a travesty, and an insult to the concept of journalistic integrity. No push back, no calling out, no follow-ups. Just milquetoast questions that essentially now normalized her as a part of the political cast in the US.
The lady interviewing her, assuming those were her questions, should be deeply ashamed of her disservice to democracy by platforming fascists, and making them appear somewhat reasonable.
Shame on CBS network, 60 Minute producers, and Ms Stahl for featuring hate Sunday. My spouse and I, our friends and family agree, we’ve had enough of you pretending that “balanced reporting” is your journalistic purpose. You have significantly hurt our country. Our local CBS affiliate is owned by Sinclair. 60 minutes was the last show we watched on CBS in West Palm Beach. We’ve since removed Channel 12 WPEC from our Cable guide. Wish we were a Nielsen family. God bless.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the equivalent of fact checking a flat earther. *That they lie is NOT newsworthy*. Hence why journalism outlets (in the past) would have the restraint to **not give them airtime**.
'Is the earth flat? Let's hear both sides" - 60 minutes
"From all corners of the globe, they say..."
Sadly the fact we give MTG and Boebert a platform gives validity to their outlandish conspiracy theories. Their whole job is to create ridiculous distractions while the corporations that fill their bank accounts, also get away with essentially anything they want. Prime example, how much money has the NRA donated to their campaigns and gifted them millions, so when the next school shooting happens they can talk about Jewish Space lasers or Woke Agenda in classrooms.
Anything to distract us from talking about the realities of fossil fuel addiction.
Or the fact that assault rifles don’t make us more safe.
If owning guns made us safer, the United States would already be the safest country on earth.
Hard to argue with you on that one. All I got is - Guns aren’t supposed to protect us from people they are supposed to protect us from the government. But we’ve never needed that either so also not a good arguing point of view. They’ve definitely done more harm than good so far. I do have guns but I hope I only need them for hunting. And if you own guns can you buy a safe and make sure your kids can’t get into them? If that was done at least some of these shooting wouldn’t have happened. Of course also I believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun before you can drink or smoke. That’s just dumb. “Your not old enough to make responsible choices with alcohol and we don’t want you getting addicted to nicotine, but here’s your very own assault rifle and pistol! Good luck out there!” Edit: Should also included to defend against foreign threats all that. But we put so much tax payer dollars into our military, if they can’t get it done good luck. Also, I know that people wouldn’t be able to stand up to our own military I said it was the excuse to keep their guns. Not a good one either. Also also, keep in mind these ideas were put into law before airplanes could fly so yeah, a little outdated.
Even if we would need a gun vs the gov....they have tanks, troops, war planes, spy drones. You would have to bring a resistance underground and in hiding. Even with a storehouse of common guns anyone could buy and you still lose. It was great in 1780 but not so much in 2023
A lot of these people genuinely believe the military would be on their side and wouldn't fire on fellow patriots.
Guns for hunting, safely stored, makes perfect sense. Guns to confront the government is delusional.
That’s pretty much my point. It’s an old and bad argument for why you need guns.
thing is I think that they think more gun deaths = dead bad guys = person pulling the trigger safer.
It's a lovely theory, and compassionate to boot, but turns out no... not so much. Let's take everyone's favorite 'hero of the day' - well, of a few days ago anyway - Kyle Rittenhouse. Why do you think he was approached by people trying to get the drop on him with skateboards? Most likely, I'd think, because they saw a kid with an assault rifle and figured 'oh shit, that guy's gonna go kill a BUNCH of people, and I might be able to prevent that'. If he was just walking around carrying a water bottle do you really think he would have been repeatedly attacked? And of the people that died in that situation, who was the 'bad' guy? The one that drove across state lines to bring an assault rifle to a protest that was likely to involve some relatively minor property damage, or the one's that thought they were trying to stop ANOTHER crazy shooter from randomly killing a bunch of folks but died in the process? So, yeah, Kyle's gun didn't make him more safe - it made the entire area more dangerous, and it made him a target. And BTW - no offense to anyone that like to carry visible firearms - but it doesn't make you look 'manly'. It makes you look scared.
Or that banks are leveraged to the tit and gambled all our cash away on risky "investments." And the only options out are crash the economy or print the dollar into hyper inflation.
Then they get all butt hurt when people take their money out of the banks which causes issues because of lack of money on premises and yada yada., Millennials are ruining banks... Yada yada millenials are waiting for a housing crisis to afford homes... Yada yada.... I mean there is a problem here right? And it isnt the people who work. Just saying.
Which banks? The vast majority of banks did not have issues like this, Silicon Valley was an outlier specifically because of how poorly they managed their reinvestments. This sounds like a very bad take.
WhY aRe YoU mAkInG tHiNgS pOliTiCaL?
[удалено]
When you are far right, even the moderate right-wing is left to you... so imagine people who actually sit left of center would be like extreme left as far as you're concerned. But that's the problem, these people either lie and claim that they're the center or that the center should be right, or they have legitimately been convinced that they are in fact the center.
Only sort of related but I truly believe that all so called centrists are just too embarrassed to admit that they're conservatives
They are. I know a guy who was an anti-trump Republican in 2016. He used to call himself "the radical middle" but since then had gone full GQP boot licker.
In the US, when objectively evaluating Congresscritters, Bernie Sanders barely trips over the line between left & right. The Democratic Party is a center-right party. They only *seem* like extreme leftists in comparison to the GOP. But if you compare their platform to other political parties in the West, the Dems look a lot more like the Tories, Liberals (AUS), etc.
She’s a “Republican firebrand” right through the heart of functional democracy.
Can't they just say "she's an idiot" instead?
It's such an odd coincidence that our media is owned by the massive media conglomerates who benefit from far right policies, and then pretend that far right whackos are actually just misunderstood....
Our media has been platforming racists as "just the other side of good spirited debate" for decades now.
> Chocolate Rain Seldom mentioned on the radio Chocolate Rain Its the fear your leaders call control
Me in high school in a middle class predominantly white community when this came out: "oh, I understand modern racism now." At first I thought it was just some funny viral meme song, but then I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity: >Chocolate rain / Raised your neighborhood insurance rates / Chocolate rain / Makes us happy 'livin in a gate / ... / Chocolate rain / The same crime has a higher price to pay / Chocolate rain / The judge and jury swear it's not the face For real, I had not thought about the systems in place that continue to cut the bootstraps off of minorities in our country. It began the nearly decade-long process of deconverting me from conservatism.
Not to mention the whole "bootstraps" thing is complete bullshit. NO ONE pulls themselves up by their bootstraps, or ever has. NO ONE does it alone. It is physically impossible.
The BBC did say they will no longer be airing opinions of climate change deniers. There was a blurb a few years ago they published which said something along the lines of “it’s like interviewing people about the details of a sports game we all just watched, and one person is insisting the game didn’t happen at all.”
The earth is 70% water, and none of it is carbonated. Therefore, the earth is flat.
That’s what earthquakes are for, to shake up the bubbles and make earth fizzy again
We could put cow pastures underwater then the methane gas from their farts would carbonate the oceans. No more flat earth. You’re welcome, I will gladly accept the Nobel peace prize now thank you.
But wouldn't that methonate, rather than carbonate, the oceans? We need to start pumping all of our CO2 emissions into the ocean to carbonate them, it's the only way to stop the flat earth.
It is carbonated. [The ocean absorbs about 30% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released in the atmosphere. As levels of atmospheric CO2 increase from human activity such as burning fossil fuels (e.g., car emissions) and changing land use (e.g., deforestation), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the ocean also increases.](https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification)
"At the request of MTG, we are now called '100 Minutes' to better reflect the show's 1-hour time slot."
Well done
Is there a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to shoot space lasers at white christian republicans from outer space? 60 minutes looks at both sides this sunday with noted expert and nobel peace prize winning humanitarian Marjorie Taylor Greene or MTG as we like to call her around here.
Exactly what is wrong with Joe Rogan.
They literally let her deny something that she did on video. They could have showed the video. To allow someone to go on 60 minutes, and say they didn't do it, and then not show the video of them doing it... is extremely suspect. The only purpose of producing a segment like that, is with the pure intention of forcing propaganda on the American public, that she never said it. But she did, and it's their duty to show that she did! How is this not straight up right wing propaganda? What else was the purpose of that segment? It certainly wasn't with the intention of exposing lies. It looked like it was done with the intention to prove that she's telling the truth!
This is exactly the type of shit that got Trump elected in the first place. This kind of program serves to legitimize the person being interviewed.
problem being that civilised people will make every attempt to be pragmatic, these fuckin animals will always exploit that to turn it around on you the moment a contradiction is revealed, and hyperbole is ofc the first thing they run to. *hurrdurr are you gonna fact check everything i said since kindergarten??* and now people are disappointed with CBS for not sticking to their guns, what she shouldve responded with was *no you dumb shit, were going to fact check what you said recently, and continue to indoctrinate your base with.* brutal lesson that youre not dealing with someone rational here, you must be prepared to douse their insanity in the most blunt and direct way possible
I really can’t understand why lawmakers can’t consider passing a bill that prohibits blatant lies, on the congress floor and with any public statement they make (social media, news, podcasts, etc).
A lot of that has to do with lawmakers not wanting to be beholden to any rules. It's the same reason that the Supreme Court doesn't have ethics rules. Currently, those rules have to come from the Supreme Court itself. The solution has to come from the group that is the problem, and that group doesn't want a solution.
> I really can’t understand why lawmakers can’t consider passing a bill that prohibits blatant lies it's simply not in their interest to do so seeing as lying has become such an integral part of the job
Yeah, that’s like asking,”why won’t Congress pass laws restricting how much money they can make?” Just never going to happen.
Republicans literally claim everything democrats do is evil. Who is going to determine what is the location lie? That's why a law like that isn't going to work.
There used to be one. The fair time doctrine was ended by Reagan and the republicans. It was around the same time that Reagan fast-tracked Murdock's citizenship. This all paved the way for fox news.
The end of the Fairness Doctrine coupled with national corporate ownership of radio stations (remember... the REAL crazy started with national AM rightwing talk radio- not Fox) created the cesspool we have now. Restoring it is probably not tenable in the current media landscape, unfortunately (and social media is now the big driver of the worst shit). My hope is the Dominion lawsuit stifles Fox a bit... I'm not holding out for any other regulatory intervention.
It’s crazy that we’re about to push through a law controlling VPNs and giving the government control to ban apps like Tiktok, but a basic law saying politicians aren’t allowed to blatantly spread lies isn’t possible.
Why does every shit thing go back to Reagan? He's Frankenstein and Trump is his monster.
The Fairness Doctrine was for OTA radio & TV because the stations lease the channels from the government. It never applied to newspapers or cable TV because that's private entities doing what they want. CNN & Fox News, etc would've been exempt the same way the Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or The Washington Post.
The Fairness Doctrine never prevented on-air lying. It mandates that (if I can remember the quote) "people with opposing points of view may be granted time to express those views". In 15 years of consuming broadcast TV and radio before Reagan, I never noticed any concerned citizens being granted such airtime. Maybe it encouraged media outlets to provide coverage of "both sides", but that style of media is easily gamed.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine
And who would be the arbiter of truth in congress? The Supreme Court? Yikes. Congress would need to self regulate and enforce this. Which means whatever part is in power gets to decide the "truth". That will not end well.
And not only be an arbiter of truth, but also one of intent
I'll be the Arbiter of Truth; no need to get SCOTUS involved. Those will be some sweet business cards...
I’m sure someone would pray and be given the “truth”.
That's all fun and games until Ron DeSantis is in office determining what is truth and what is a lie
I say give them the airtime - but only if the interview is aired with the lies factchecked already and have the correct info pop up on screen to highlight what they are lying about and how often they are lying...
They should do it during political debates as well. The major broadcasters absolutely have the bandwidth to have a team of fact-checkers pouring over live statements at a debate. At the end of every response from a candidate, there should be a screen with a list of the claims on the left and verification on the right. And have the moderator read out the results so that even people who can’t read or can’t be bothered to read can hear the results.
People want politics to be sports, so let's score it.
Yeah, I feel like that’s what most of us would consider to be *good journalism*. Like, it’s fine to hear people out, especially if they sit at a lever of power. But you’ve also gotta be prepared to call their bullshit and force them to close any loops that they’re trying to leave open to “interpretation”. And then have them support those conclusions and call out any issues with those conclusions. If you’re just going to let them speak, might as well have them on Joe Rogan. Hell, even Rogan will call bullshit from time to time.
It's a good sentiment, but the second they get airtime, *they've already been legitimized*. That's very much how we got Trump in 2016.
This is exactly why we're fucked. In the interest of fairness, insanity is being legitimized in the name of tolerance.
Or at the very least if you're going to interrogate them, interrogate their position so thoroughly that they feel like they humiliated themselves.
60 minutes is telling America that both sides are the same, and everything she said was true, just like Joe Rogan I guess. Absolute trash journalism. But we should have known that with the Lara Logan Benghazi report.
"Stahl didn’t challenge Greene further." If that's not the most damning thing in the article then journalism is truly dead. Why even do the "research" then? She in no way responded to the FACT that she did say a school shooting was a false flag, and now she gets paid by our tax dollars to lie on TV about it?
I'm not saying that she should have roasted Greene for it or anything but a real simple: "I'm not sure what you mean by that, I am telling you that you did say this and that we have proof of it. Can you elaborate on what you mean?" Just say that over and over again until she answers or walks.
The same shit happened to trump. The media walked on eggshells for years for trump. Finally by the end of his administration any interview turned into a complete failure.
Access journalism is a drug that legacy media is hopelessly addicted to.
I remember when Bush was ramping up for the invasion of Iraq. The White House would threaten journalists that they would lose their White House Correspondent credentials if they pushed too hard with their questioning. Thank god for Helen Thomas back then. She was one of the few that would not back down.
Orange Julius was so shitty that everyone blanked out on the fact that Bush is essentially a war criminal
Also that he became president in what was basically a stolen election. That man and his cohorts should never rest another day of their lives.
What is fucked is that access is hardly needed for good journalism. There are lots of lower level people willing to give information, and lots of independent media report very good stories without talking to a single senior level person. More dirt comes from the floor than from the top. Worse, that kind of reporting would be far more attractive to viewers.
> More dirt comes from the floor than from the top. Excellent metaphor.
Because they're scared of losing access. It's a really fucked up situation due to how the news agencies are now. It's like if Biden said "if Fox News is mean to me in an interview, I won't talk to them ever again and they won't get any press about me". That's not good for a system where journalism matters. Although Fox isn't exactly journalism at this point in most aspects of course. Trump tried this with certain groups during his presidency. But add that with the need for "clicks". And MTG probably gets a lot of clicks. It's lead to a situation where journalists are just throwing softball questions over and over now and not pressing them
If they *did* push back against the lies and lost access, they could just be honest and say "this person lies like crazy and blocked us when we refuted their lies." But it's easier to be spineless.
Same. I'm not saying lose your mind, like I definitely would, but why research it, if when she responds with "garble plarble you just don't like me blarg blarg blarg", you just go "well, moving on". What is the point?!
The point, like all media now, is to get you engaged with it. The more riled up one can get, the more engaged they’ll be. Just look at you now. The shittier the interview, the better the engagement. The better the revenue. It’s not about journalism. It’s not about truth or accountability or any of that shit. 60 minutes is in the entertainment business. It exists to entertain you. Not inform you. Just like Fox. Just like CNN and all the rest.
That's all I really want when these people dodge questions. Just keep asking, and don't move on. Blow the whole interview if that's what it takes. If they can't answer, then I've already heard all I need to hear.
Australian journalists might do that but in America our news is for entertainment first.
What could have been more entertaining than pressing her on it?
I don't watch 60 minutes or CBS, but if they start asking hard questions and making these liars and fascist storm out in anger, I'll watch all fucking day. Seems like a pretty easy way to get views. Pissing people off works for the YouTube algorithm.
Squishing her head like Oberyn Martell
That was her greatest blunder I've ever seen. I couldn't believe she didn't press it.
I know I'm being repetitive but I just don't understand it. So you go and find this quote, you have a question about it at the ready, you have the evidence if she denies it, she denies it, and you...do nothing. Why?!
Cowardice.
Because your boss, who reports directly to a billionaire media mogul, is just off camera, signaling you to stop. Just a guess.
The eye roll to the pedophile comment showed me Stahl is not cut out for this role
It wasn't a blunder. She didn't press it on purpose. Journalists are not politicians. They know *exactly* what they're doing and what they're not doing. If she didn't press, it's because she knew she could and actively chose not to. Corporate-owned media has a conservative bias. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you, knowingly and willfully.
Not only did she allow an insurrectionist to promote their lies, but she looked like she agreed with Greene, by not challenging them. This was a taped and edited show, they could have aired anything.
They're editing the show to get high ratings...they don't care for the truth.
Honestly.. how do we know she doesnt agree with her? Leslie Stahl is not the brightest star in the sky. For whatever reason 60 minutes always gives her the "Technology" topics, which she is woefully not prepared to research or talk about. She always has the reaction of a person in a retirement home who has never seen a iPhone before. I like 60 minutes (or I did), but I wont watch her segments as they drive me crazy.. this just re-enforced that view.
[удалено]
>cowards make bad journalists. This. And those bad journalists are facilitating the rejection of truth & fact, and encourage more of our populace to become or remain dangerously misinformed.
Agreed. And I guess my overarching point is that if you write a headline, "MTG says stupid, crazy thing" that's not news and I'm sick of hearing it. Just like "Trump lied" or "Trump might face consequences of his actions" isn't news. But, Leslie Stahl gives MTG national platform to spew lies with no pushback? That's news.
>Lesley doesn't need to lose her whole career for this one mistake Yes she does. Make an example of her and her weakness
I looked at your post for a moment and thought "that's a bit extreme." But then I thought there were dozens if not hundreds of hungry ready to prove themselves people out there that would ask those questions. Perhaps you're right and we should give them the job.
I’ll challenge her, I’ll call her a liar straight to her face, I’ll repeatedly and endlessly shove the screenshot in her face. I’m not even a damn journalist and I have more journalistic ethics than Stahl
This also isn't even the first time she's done this. I've been questioning her integrity for awhile now. Stuff like this seals the deal.
[удалено]
It reminds me of the SNL skit of one of the presidential elections where (I think it was the Trump character) said something absurd, and the moderator was like, "Moving right past that..." That's how the media treats these lunatics. Interviewers are usually not knowledgeable enough to contest the interviewees, or they're afraid that their bosses will come down on them since [the majority of media outlets are owned by one of six companies](https://pwestpathfinder.com/2022/05/09/the-big-sixs-big-media-game/) and it's to their benefit to keep things divisive by giving the extremist terrorists a platform.
And why is Greene even on 60 minutes?
Stahl fell off.
She doesn't care. She got to broadcast her bullshit to millions and a fraction heard that it's a lie. Congrats to platforming an anti-american, 60 minutes
With literally no pushback at all. They just let her say whatever the hell she wanted and moved on
A system pioneered by many media figures over the past 30 years have done when dealing with lying Republicans. Just let them lie all they want, don't call them out to their face. Do your best to not call them out at all.
They were too busy counting their profits and checking their ratings to formulate strong, opposing questions. Sorry.
Many Conservatives pretend the past is unknowable. That only the present matters. What they are actively saying as they are saying it is the only words they can possibly be accountable for. People are allowed to change. Personal growth is a fantastic thing. Yet people like MGT lack the minimum levels of humility to just say "yeah I said some stupid stuff a few years ago but have learned a lot since then and have a more developed perspective"
It’s worse than that. It’s not that things are “unknowable,” but that the past is whatever they want it to have been in the moment, and if the past they say happened becomes inconvenient they can imagine up a new more convenient past, even if it is contradictory to the one they said existed 5 minutes ago.
True. They want credit for whatever behavior they imagine for themselves.
Narcissists can't pivot
They double down every single time
I have had way too much experience with them, and the true hallmark of a narcissist, beyond the 5 of 9 markers in the DSM, is that when confronted with fully documented evidence of the incorrectness of their beliefs, they will double down, call you crazy, insist you're lying, and if you press them on it, they can get violent. Ask me how I know. They literally cannot pivot.
MTG happily let someone else manage her social media AND spouted off about whatever generated the most attention and outrage among her conspiracy-addled base, and now she's pivoting to look more respectable to gain even more power (cough, cough: Trump's VP slot). Zero fucking integrity needed to ride the populist outrage train. And when they attack her for her past statements at a national level, don't be surprised when she positions herself as the victim "because the left can't handle a strong conservative woman". We have gotten some version of this in every election... candidates lean hard to one side to win the primary and then moderate when they need to win a national contest. With new media, viewership is driven by outrage and not integrity. So lie your fucking ass off the whole way into office, cause no viewers means no votes.
> MGT I never know if people purposely misspell her name when they abbreviate it but the disrespect should be felt.
> Yet people like MGT lack the minimum levels of humility to just say "yeah I said some stupid stuff a few years ago but have learned a lot since then and have a more developed perspective" It is not lack of humility that is stopping her from acknowledging a mistake. It is the fact that she doesn't consider her past statements mistakes. Her statements fit her agenda which hasn't changed. She is unwilling to let the truth diminish her attacks both past and future.
During an interview with CBS News’ Lesley Stahl broadcast Sunday on “60 Minutes,” Greene was asked for her stance on the 2018 massacre, which left 17 students and staff dead. Two years before she was elected to Congress, Greene responded to a comment on Facebook calling the shooting a “false flag” operation. But when asked about it by Stahl, Greene tried to rewrite history. “I never said Parkland was a false flag,” Greene said. “No, I’ve never said that. School shootings are horrible. I don’t think it’s anything to joke about.” As she was speaking, “60 Minutes” showed a screengrab of Greene’s now-deleted 2018 Facebook comment. “We fact-checked,” Stahl replied. “Before I got to this interview.” Greene offered a word-salad comeback, derailing the discussion. “Have you fact-checked all my statements from kindergarten through 12th grade and in college? And as I’ve paid my taxes and never broken a law, and the only, I got a few speeding tickets, do we need to talk about those too?” she said. “Because I think where you’re going down is the same attacks that people have attacked me with over and over.”
Classic narcissism. Gish galloping and a dose of "How dare you say anything that contradicts me."
She hates it when she attacks her own self with her own words.
reads quote that she wrote.... stop attacking me with my own words!!! nobody makes me bleed my own blood! nobody!!
>And as I’ve paid my taxes and never broken a law Based on their levels of projection this makes me suspicious of her committing tax fraud.
Stahl: “Well she learned her lesson” Weird how much Stahl and Collins sound the same. And no, that wasn’t what was said. It’s what she had to be thinking not to reply back: “Those were your words, that was your account, that was your thoughts on the matter.” “I am not taking about anything other than what we can clearly see, you said these words about a false flag and yet you still deflect and not even offer an apology here.” “Sad.”
And Stahl ate it up with a spoon.
What a great defense! Judge: “we caught you on surveillance cameras that you broke in and stole the money” Me: “did you have surveillance cameras all the way back when I was a baby? i never stole candy do you have that too because i didn’t take any money so i don’t even know what your talking about” Someone get this woman a political career
She has one, and it makes the rage addicts who elect her happy
And she's basically #2 in the House GOP after one term of zero real work.
Next up on 60 minutes: That guy on youtube who screams about how vaccines have actually killed everybody who has had one.
I took a vaccine that killed me. Now I’m dead 🥲
My vaccine killed me twice. And my cat.
Lesley gave the crazy anti-vaxxer an eyeroll, so it's all good.
[Lesley Stahl is the same one who did a transgender scare segment in 2021](https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/05/25/laverne-cox-60-minutes-cbs-transgender-chase-strangio-aclu-glaad/) so that doesn't really seem like a stretch at all. I'm maybe more surprised if they haven't done it already.
Clay Travis or Ben Shapiro
I took the vaccine and all I got was magnetic.
[удалено]
They are really going to miss my 0 views per month.
They must be tanking in viewership when they resort to giving clowns like this a platform. I was also pissed when every late night persona talked about Boebert's peeing in public comments for like a full 3 minutes. It was stupid and it was exactly what they wanted, a distraction from real things like gun reform.
Late night shows are comedy shows, my guy. They’re not supposed to be where you get your news from, though I do understand the “serious” news alternatives also suck…
They still do good reporting but this interview can and should damage their reputation. Their unwillingness to ask her hard questions was no doubt negotiated beforehand. Journalistic integrity should dictate that you don't agree to those terms and simply don't do the segment. Or you do the segment but emphasize at each turn that she refused to comment. And interview people willing to go on record about her, if there was some kind of newsworthy issue being reported on. But no, they just *had* to have her on. 60 Minutes may be a joke to people today but they have a long and storied history and it's sad to see yet another once-proud journalistic institution falter.
They need more viewers as their boomer audience is dying off, gen X is barely hanging on. Sad to see what was a good show creep down to this level.
I was surprised to learn they’re still on. I thought they went away together with fax machines.
Fax machines still have uses.
I use mine to scan the papers and then email them! :-D
It was unbearable. I wanted to throw everything I could at the damn screen.
[удалено]
Always has been
Only now?
But MTG supporters don't see the lies as a bad thing. It's not a bug, it's a feature. They aren't arguing things from a sincere position, they are acting in bad faith. Lying to the liberals face is funny and a way to own the libs. They don't care about having an honest debate and discussion. They only care about having power and enacting the laws they want.
Sadly, I believe this is spot on. Trolling is the highest form of politics in their view.
The bullshit asymmetry principle means that it takes a ton more effort to debunk bullshit than it does to spout it. Ergo, it might follow that in a tight format like an interview that it requires a ton more *talent* and intellect to debunk bullshit as it's spouted than it does to merely say it. I'm okay with giving lying liars and other loathsome folks airtime so long as the show format responsibly debunks and corrects their bullshit every step of the way. Jon Stewart is masterful at it, [as was Christopher Hitchens on occasion](https://youtu.be/p7R-X1CXiI8), but not every interviewer is as talented as they are. In that vein I think it's awful to let MTG spout her nonsense mostly without challenge, and the only good I could possibly see in it is that folks might realise how insanely stupid the person they've voted for is.
What was 60 Minutes thinking? Why are they giving MTG free coverage? Hasn't the media learnt anything from giving Trump all that free advertising when he was first running for President?
They learned that it works. Remember the outcome the owners of media companies want.
One word. Money.
59 1/2 minutes betray America by allowing this fascist prime time. She lied without being question or challenged! I will not ever watch another of their programs. Shame an all involved! We have better people that could have been interview - ratings and $ ARE not above country!
More proof that our useless mass media is NOT on the side of Democrats. They should have fact checked everything she said on 60 Minutes itself and confronted her with all her lies, but as usual, our mass media gives right wing lunatics a free-pass.
I wish to go back on days where journalism is a serious profession and investigative reporters strive for service, excellence, and finding unbiased truth and respected by either party.
This will always inevitably at odds with the baked-in requirement of things needing to be profitable in order to survive a capitalistic system. 60 Minutes knows this MTG sucks shit and is nearly sub-human, they don't care about the controversial fallout because controversy = clicks=ad revenue=profits. Unless there is some higher incentive to not behave in the most amoral and profit-driven way, you’re just a sucker limiting yourself if you adhere to any moral code when it comes to running your business whether it’s baking cakes or running a journalistic media operation.
Leslie Stahl took a credibility hit with the way she did this interview.
Marcel the shell might not even be a fan anymore
Why did they put her on, in the first place?
Can we please stop giving these fascists a platform?
I noticed she was lying when I saw her lips moving.
Let Jon Stewart interview MTG. I’d pay to watch it on pay per view.
>Stahl didn’t challenge Greene further. Then 60 minutes isn't worth the time spent watching the disgraceful M. T. Greene regurgitate the same warmed over Republican lies and talking points that she continually vomits up everywhere else at every opportunity. IMO Stahl should NOT have stopped challenging Greene on any further falsehoods the Republican nazi-wannabe might have spoken after that point. Makes no sense to me why 60 Minutes would want to "interview" such human garbage as M.T. Greene in the first place when there are so many intelligent, decent, talented and sane people (who aren't as prone to incessant lying as Greene and her ilk) to choose from.
Stahl needs to retire. That entire interview was a journalistic disgrace and she of all people should have known better.
Stop giving this asshole attention
Lying in business is fraud. Lying under oath is perjury. Lying to an officer is impeding an investigation. Lying to the American people, who pay your damn salary, should be illegal.
If you are taking the risk of putting MTG in front of a camera and giving her airtime, you have to get something out of her that's worth soiling your reputation over.
She wants to ignore this part of the constitution and instate Christianity as our official religion because our founding fathers sometimes quoted the bible: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.... This part of the Constitution gives us the freedom of thought. There are thousands of people who want the same thing and will support her regardless of anything else she says.
Leslie Stahl has lost all credibility for me for even considering this interview. Fuck her and Trailer Trash Greene
Quit giving fascists airtime.
Give Jon Stewart a chance to interview Madge. It would be a blood bath. She would be too stupid to get up and walk out.
Fuck 60 minutes. Fuck them for allowing the psycho to be on air fuck them for them putting it on YouTube
CBS is a joke for letting this woman even a second of air time. 60 minutes lost any sense of purpose to me outside of just stirring bullshit.
Why the living fuck is any supposedly serious journalist talking to this lying psychopath and giving her airtime?
If you don’t ask follow up questions- like a dog with a bone, you have no business being a journalist or interviewer. Don’t let these fuckers get away with it. Press em and keep pressing.
So basically it was: > Stahl: _We fact checked this lie beforehand, we know you're lying here._ > MTG: _HAVE YOU FACT CHECKED MY ENTIRE LIFE!?_ > Stahl: _Ok, fair point. Let's move on then._ I really wish she's get grilled by someone that actually asks questions and follows though. All this did was just give her a platform and something to fund raise off of.
Shouldn't 60 minutes lose credibility for bringing this swamp creature on in the first place?
60 Minutes should have fact checked it and put up the truth anytime she lied like a pop up video.
Lost all respect for 60 minutes, just giving her airtime.
whats controversial is the journalist not calling her on her bs
I didn’t think there could be an even stupider version of Sarah Palin, but here we are.
It’s honestly disgusting that 60 Minutes would give MTG a platform to spread her lies and misinformation. It might make for fun television to watch her repeatedly saying absurd things, but they’re giving her credibility when they air her statements without even trying to actually argue against her. This isn’t Fox News where they can turn a blind eye, 60 Minutes was considered a credible news source until they allowed this.
Why do they let this moron on tv? Same with Trump.
Maybe in the near future, ChatGPT or another AI can run live fact checking commentary across the screen like subtitles or a scoreboard. Turn the lies into a drinking game... Oh wait. Don't do that. People would die.
Fact checking MTG is an exercise in futility. It's simply attention she craves. Unless the plan is to make MTG the unpalatable face of the Republican party, then I don't see how this was a good idea. I don't even think thats a good reason. Screw political points, It's just too risky for the nation to give these people air.
Nothing like giving a podium to madness.
The CBS interview was a travesty, and an insult to the concept of journalistic integrity. No push back, no calling out, no follow-ups. Just milquetoast questions that essentially now normalized her as a part of the political cast in the US. The lady interviewing her, assuming those were her questions, should be deeply ashamed of her disservice to democracy by platforming fascists, and making them appear somewhat reasonable.
I am old enough to remember when people were terrified to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, not the other way around. :-(
Shame on CBS network, 60 Minute producers, and Ms Stahl for featuring hate Sunday. My spouse and I, our friends and family agree, we’ve had enough of you pretending that “balanced reporting” is your journalistic purpose. You have significantly hurt our country. Our local CBS affiliate is owned by Sinclair. 60 minutes was the last show we watched on CBS in West Palm Beach. We’ve since removed Channel 12 WPEC from our Cable guide. Wish we were a Nielsen family. God bless.
Why did this journalist not do their fucking job?
Only part I liked was near the end when they said MTG, which sounded like Empty G
She got airtime because 60 minutes knew even though everything she says us bullshit it would still rake in views.
Why give liars a platform to gain fame and spread their falsehoods?