After only 45 minutes of his interview on 60 Minutes, Trump exited the room, refusing to finish the interview. Insiders claimed that Trump did not believe the questions he was being asked were from a professional standpoint, Trump directly stating that his interview with Lesley Stahl was “Fake and biased,” later threatening to release the tape before it was scheduled to air. He then posted an image of Stahl without a mask at the debate, to which the New York Times has claimed was misrepresentative of her actions, as she had worn a mask up until the start of taping the interview. Furthermore, he stated that his opposing presidential candidate, Joe Biden, had been “treated less harshly by journalistic interlocutors,” as written in the New York Times report on the case.
Trump’s behavior of accusing outside parties of unfair treatment is not out of the ordinary. An example is during the investigations of whether Russia had interfered with the 2016 election, where President Trump accused Robert Mueller of targeting him because he assumed Mueller was biased, as addressed by the Guardian. Interestingly enough, Trump had been on 3 interviews on 60 minutes during the prior presidential election, not accusing any interviewers as he had today. This inconsistency hints that Trump leaving the interview may not have been because he felt it was fake or biased, as he had worked with 60 Minutes before and not felt the need to leave.
This reminds me of how past presidents like Roosevelt would only answer interview questions that they agreed with. They would do this by more deeply planning their interviews and denying questions that they did not want answered. The difference between the 2 events is that Trump is in a time when the people of the US have grown to question people in power, largely due to events such as the Watergate Scandal that caused people to lose trust in their elected officials. A Washington Post report in early 2020 found that a majority of Americans trusted the media’s portrayal of the coronavirus severity more than that of the Trump Administration, and I think it speaks to the fact that the president is one of the officials that the people have lost their trust for. Recalling Roosevelt denying questions, we can refer to a Washington Post reporter from the time, Harlan Miller, who commented that Roosevelt “selects only those [questions] on which he can ring the bell" (according to Reason, a more factual yet conservative news source). Currently I am of the impression that Trump did not like some of the questions he was being asked, and, similarly to Roosevelt, left the interview because of it.
Because this is largely my opinion, I am curious what you think. Did Trump leave the interview because he truly thought it was biased? Was Trump trying to dodge a possible infringement of his image? What other important points are to be made?
9 comments:
Based on the leaked footage, I don't think he was wrong. The interviewer kept interrupting him to "fact check" him, even when he made a subjective claim. For example, when he said "we created the best economy in the history of the country," the interviewer immediately responded with "you know that's not true." Another example was when the interviewer portrayed Trump's statements about suburban women as him begging for their vote, even though just listening to his tone when he made those statements during his rallies will reveal that he was obviously joking.
While I'm all for fact checking people when they get something factually wrong, which there's plenty when it comes to the President, interrupting somebody to tell them their opinion is wrong is pretty clear sign of bias. Also, Trump left when there was a warning given for five minutes left before the interview was about to end. One can argue that he was diverting answers or avoiding questions, but he did not straight up say that he would not answer a question, nor did he walk out halfway through the interview as it would appear in the headlines.
I do somewhat agree with Barry's point of view where the interviewer constantly kept fact checking him which is definitely a tactic used much more recently by the media. However, although this could be a sign of bias, I see it more as a necessity that should be implemented in future interviews of politicians. I remember that after the first debate between Trump and Biden, many new sources came out to fact check each candidates responses and it turned out that from both sides there was at least some form of embellishing or straight out misleading information. Thus, since the media is such an influential source of news and reporting to the American people, I think that it is important for the media to fact check what politicians say in order to bring the truth to the public and not bring falsified information that politicians might say just to paint themselves in a better light or garnish support for them. Although Trump left at five minutes before the end of the interview, his divergence of certain questions was still quite childish and rash. As politicians, avoiding questions that might seem critical or not towards their favor will only damage their image and reputation, instead, just like any conversation or debate, they should learn to respond to these more difficult questions and use facts instead of erroneous or embellished statements.
After watching that interview it is hard to say that there wasn't at least a little bit of bias. As on many occasions, Trump was called out and fact-checked for claims he was making but Biden wasn't despite both of them putting out misleading information. Now I don't believe that they shouldn't be fact-checked but it should go both ways. In addition, when interrupting someone during an interview in the middle of their statement to tell them they are wrong is another clear sign of bias. It is almost as if the interview was waiting at any moment to call Trump out for his mistakes which rarely happens to Biden. Again, I am not against fact-checking but I do believe it should go both ways and not in the middle of someone's statement or claim.
I did not watch this interview but it sounds like the interviewer was asking President Trump a lot of gotcha questions. They would cut him off and try to disprove what he had to say. Though this could just be seen as being a good interviewer, the same was not done to Joe Biden. This can lead one to believe there was bias during this interview. I don't think the fact that Donald Trump had other interviews before with the same group can be definitive prove of whether he left because he didn't want to ruin his image or because it was truly bias. Interview topic change, and so do peoples opinions. From what I have seen so far a lot of the interviewers in these debates are not attacking Biden the same way they are from Trumo. Maybe that's because Trump has done and said worse things, but I am not sure that is the case.
Trump can not handle criticism. Trump dislikes when anyone disagrees with him. While these are rash conclusions, I think we've seen enough displays of such behaviour throughout his presidency to make such statements with a relatively high level of confidence. Without sounding too harsh, I believe his behavior reflects one of a cornered wild animal with the only instincts of fighting or fleeing. If he's not bashing someone on twitter for confronting him, he's exiting interviews. I do agree Lesley Stahl had the intentions of setting Trump straight and helping him realize that what he believes (such as the "world's greatest economy" and "doing a great job with COVID") were not agreed with around the table. If he's going to characterize fact checking as bias then I'm concerned with the La La Land he's living in because the purpose of media is to deliver truth and if Trump is digging up a false narrative, which is subjective but considering we've had 230,000+ deaths much of which could have been prevented according to medical professionals (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/522219-columbia-report-us-could-have-avoided-130000-covid-deaths-with-better), an interview without recognizing and calling out his shortcomings would be what I call bias.
I like Kayla's opening statement- "Trump can not handle criticism." After watching both Trump and Biden's interviews this became even more clear. Lesley Stall pended the interview by asking Trump is he was "ready to answer some tough questions" which immediately caused Trump to panic and put up a defense fence. throughout the whole fifteen minute interview he kept going back to her statement about the nature of her questions, saying that Biden would never receive questions like he gets. However, I believe that the nature of her questions were warranted. She called him out for his false claims, giving him a fair opportunity to justify them. Instead of responding, he just went back to his obsession of if Biden got a question like that, showing him as immature and incapable to taking any sort of criticism. I do think the interview was bias, but only because Trump made it. If you continue to watch through Pence's portion, he composes himself much better. He answers question authentically and treats the Lesley with respect. As much as I disagree with Pence he carried himself as a politician, rather than an upset child.
Interviews of this nature are hardly interviews. I agree with what Lorenzo said about how the questions are gotcha questions, they are more targetted and are even more convicting. But this has been the case for many political interviews. As a president, you would assume that they have experienced enough of these to know the standard. This hasn't been the first time a politician has stopped an interview because they feel offended or biased against. Trump should have expected this and declined if he wasn't comfortable answering the questions. I also like the irony in how he just left a 60 minute interview at the 45 minute mark.
I agree with both Ella and Kayla in their previous comments; Trump's handling of criticism and opposition is pretty bad, to say the least. Trump is always citing Fox News in his tweets and public addresses, as they support him and his point of view. Now, when put in a position where the media is not as right-leaning, he interprets all questions about his actions and time in office as a direct "attack." While there arguably is some bias on both sides, the interviewer and President Trump, that bias shouldn't go as far as to be called entirely "fake." As a politician, one has to expect to be asked questions that aren't always positive and then find a way to turn it around. To say it bluntly, if Trump is not handed the bone, he will avoid trying at all and name it "fake news," trying to disqualify any opposition. Trump's need for recognition and victory is even more apparent now- he continuously claims to be the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election despite all main media outlets and the Associated Press rejecting his statements. Other world leaders are endorsing President-elect Joe Biden, and Trump still claims that the election was "rigged" and voter fraud occurred. Trump's need to claim the election was "rigged" further demonstrates his inability to take criticism or react when things aren't going his way.
Post a Comment