Sound Advice For Future Interviewers of TFG

Posted on by under Election 2024, Free Press Issues, Political commentary, Social commentary

Okay, so I’ve spent the last two hours reading various accounts of the interview Kristen Welker did with the former guy last Friday.  From all accounts, NBC should have kept Chuck Todd as moderator for Meet the Press, though I was not a fan of Mr. Todd.  Not one single story I’ve seen had anything whatsoever positive to say about the interview … apparently Ms. Welker let Trump dominate with his lies which were allowed to stand uncontested, and Ms. Welker even went so far as to address him as “Mr. President”, a big faux pas in my book.  I did not watch the interview, nor will I, for I refuse to allow Mr. Trump and his annoying voice anywhere near my computer, but from all I’ve read, I think Ms. Welker is not ready for prime time.

David Pepper, former Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, author of several books and an astute political analyst, is a voice I recently discovered on Substack. He has some advice for media personalities on how to interview Donald Trump and others of his ilk, and it seems like sound advice to me.  See what you think …

How to Interview Trump …

… Without It Becoming a Disinformation Forum

By David Pepper

18 September 2023

After yesterday’s Meet the Press interview with Trump , NBC released an after-the-fact fact check documenting 11 of the lies he told.

News flash: if you allowed someone to lie 11 times in such a short amount of time, you did something wrong.

And if you are a major media outlet, if you let it happen such that you need that hefty of a fact check, you are acknowledging that you provided a national forum for disinformation.

Which means you failed.

But if you are going to interview Trump, knowing he will lie repeatedly, how can you stop this?

Here’s my simple suggestion:

Never move on from the FIRST lie until he acknowledges it’s a lie.

NEVER.

Literally….end the interview rather than moving onto the next topic.

Why does this matter?

Because Trump and other dishonest subjects go into these interviews KNOWING they can get away with endless lying, for two reasons.

First, in many cases, they’re not even fact-checked.

Second, even if they are fact checked, they KNOW that the interviewer’s goal is to get through a long list of questions.

Which means they KNOW that if they simply dodge or repeat the lie just one or two more times, the interviewer will move on to their next topic they’ve planned out.

Which gives them their next opportunity to lie, and start the cycle over. And then they repeat the same pattern for the rest of the interview.

Again, the interviewer’s need to “move on” to the next question is the key…the best friend of the dishonest interviewee.

Repeat the lie enough, run right through the initial fact check (if there even is one), and you exhaust the interviewer until she or he feels like it’s time to move on to the next question. And the next lie.

And that’s how you get so many lies and so much misinformation spewed into one interview.

One other thing: every time you “move on,” if done incorrectly, it can come across as a white flag of surrender. A declaration of “both sides” having a point. As if it must not really be a lie. Or as if the truth of the matter is subjective. Or that there are perhaps multiple views of the matter.

And once that impression is left, the lie just won. The liar just succeeded. And then when the next questions come, he gets to do it again.

So what’s the answer?

Do NOT move on from the first lie.

Don’t do the very thing they count on you to do to get their next round of lies.

STOP at that first lie and dig in.

For as long as you need to.

Rebut that lie with every fact and figure and proof point there is. (Having of course planned in advance). Air video clips showing the truth. Whatever it takes.

Just keep going and digging and rebutting.

Make it clear to your audience (and the person you are interviewing) that there is an objective truth on the matter, and also make clear to the person you are interviewing that you will not move on until they acknowledge it.

Do it for as long as it takes to force Trump or the lying subject to acknowledge the lie.

And most importantly, for as long as they refuse to acknowledge it, as much as you want to move to the next question, do NOT!

Yes…if that means end the interview rather than moving on, end the interview.

And make it clear that you will not move to the next question—that you will end the interview if necessary—if they do not acknowledge that what they said is not true.

When this leads to awkward silence or hostility, which it will, stick to it. (Trump counts on that awkwardness and silence so that you will move on. It’s a form of his bullying).

And amid that silence, if Trump still won’t acknowledge the lie, just end the interview.

Get up and go.

But what about all those other questions you wanted to ask?

Forget them!

Those questions (and the lies they would’ve elicited if you move on from the first lie) aren’t nearly as important as making a clear statement that you will not move on from a blatant lie being shared on your airwaves.

Doing this may be the only thing that convinces the interviewee not to lie. Or to admit it was a lie. Because at some point, they too will want to move on to other questions.

But even more importantly, this approach is the ironclad guarantee that the forum you provide will not be used as a place for anyone to foment lies and disinformation.

Because you have established that if they even try it once, and you show them clearly they are lying, and they still keep trying to lie to you and your audience, you will close the forum immediately.

That guarantees that you won’t host a forum of disinformation.

Now, if all those who decide to interview the likes of Trump conducted interviews this way, things would be pretty different, wouldn’t they?

Hoping someone tries it.

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

40 thoughts on “Sound Advice For Future Interviewers of TFG”

  2. Personally, my first word of an answer to how would be don’t. (interview Trump.) But, the other day, Parker Malloy wrote about a guy who interviewed Trump in 2016, and stayed on a question like a pitbull. It was pretty awesome to read: https://www.readtpa.com/p/theres-only-one-way-to-interview . Jake Tapper’s fallen down interviewing Republicans since then, but driving on a single question with Trump has been done. Parker also links to a Jonathan Swan interview of Trump in 2020, in which Swan was tenacious, as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I would agree … I DO agree … but that’s as likely as me sprouting wings and flying, so next best thing is for competent people to do the interviewing and stick to their guns, hold his feet to the fire. I remember the one with Jonathan Swan … it was a good one! If you allow him to get the upper hand in the beginning, you might as well go home, for he will dominate the conversation. If you can shut him up early on … he gets frustrated and talks even more stupidly than usual. I’d love for him to get angry enough to just get up and walk out someday, show the world once again just what a mental juvenile he is.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Hello. I read an article that interviewed several hosts of programs. One of the things asked was why they let guests lie or just filibuster questions with a word salad that means nothing. The hosts to a person said that if they did try to correct or fact-check the republican guest or stop them when they were ranting the republicans as a group, the entire party, would forbid any one of their members from appearing on their shows. They admitted they treated democrats more harshly because the democrats don’t have these same rules. The same when trump was president, if they upset his administration they couldn’t get administration officials / staff to come on their shows. It was all about keeping access, so they put up with the bullshit. Hugs, Scottie

    Liked by 4 people

    • All the more reason to not allow the lies! But that is not how the media works anymore.They worry more about the money their advertisers pay than truth. The catch is, the advertisers don’t tell the truth about their products either. What happened to the “Truth in Advertising” Law, or was that a lie too?

      Liked by 5 people

    • Well, that makes sense, but … what is the value in having them on your show if all they’re going to do is lie? I think I’d rather not have them at all. If all the media insisted on fact-checking and holding their feet to the fire, and if they boycotted all the media, then we wouldn’t have to see their ugly mugs anymore! A win-win! I understand their point, but I still say the press has a responsibility to its viewers/readers, and they are letting us down.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. I don’t think the mainstream media should interview Trump at all; he should not be elevated to the status of a normal candidate. Nothing about him and what he’s doing is normal. The corporate decision to make money this way was scurrilous.

    I remember when Tim Russert, a real interviewer, was at the Meet the Press helm. No one since has come close to his talent—certainly not Chuck Todd, and definitely not Kristen Welker. I wonder whose decision it was to call him “President.” I suspect he made it a prerequisite. It was shameful.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Trump should not be elevated to the status of interesting person, unless during the whole time he is talking the screen is blocked with the words, CAUTION! THIS MAN IS LYING! THIS MAN IS LYING!

      Liked by 4 people

    • I’m inclined to agree with you, Annie! The less attention he gets, the better, especially since he cannot seem to tell the truth or stop his megalomaniacal tendencies! No, Chuck Todd was the pits, and I don’t see this Kristen Welker lasting very long, given the shabby start. Then again, it was WRONG of NBC to give her that assignment right out of the box! Calling him ‘president’ is one thing … we typically refer to former presidents as ‘president’ even after they’ve left office. But to call him “Mr. President” indicates that he is still in office, and was highly inappropriate.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Excellent advice! The mainstream media needs to stop contributing to the spreading of misinformation! Their role is to keep the public informed with facts, not simply to allow anyone to say anything they want.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Jill, I am reminded of the attorney who deposed Donald Trump under oath and got him to correct over 30 lies or face perjury. I would love to take him up on his offer and put him on the stand. As for TV interviewers, they need to know he will steam roll you if you let him. What he cannot stand is a knowledgeable interviewer who asks him questions. Keith

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Pingback: Sound Advice For Future Interviewers of TFG | Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News

Comments are closed.