She talks about the media's role and the elected politicians. This testimony sounded real to me (and I did listen to the focus group you linked to. Remember to account for the selection process of who they're talking to).
She talks about the media's role and the elected politicians. This testimony sounded real to me (and I did listen to the focus group you linked to. Remember to account for the selection process of who they're talking to).
Thanks, Kelly. I listened to this. She is very intelligent, principled, and exceptionally angry and aggressive. I agree with her on the existence of perverse incentives affecting media behavior. I don't agree with her premise that Biden having gotten the delegate votes and voter approval to date automatically and permanently immunizes him from evaluation as time goes on, particularly as many who have supported him (like me) see, with our own eyes and hear him with our own ears and are not feeling that he is right for the presidency now. If he were to have a stroke and be unable to speak at all, by her logic, the press should still support him because she said so. So yes, this person has some legitimate suspicions and concerns, but I don't agree with her conclusions, and don't find her threatening and hostile tone to increase her credibility as an expert on journalism or politics.
Absolutely, the selection process of participants in the focus groups Sarah has organized is essential to understand. With the goal of beating Trump, Sarah assembles groups that might be persuaded to vote Democratic, or at least to reject Trump.
I watched this last night.https://youtu.be/2acbmSjSvvI?si=2NdnFtbCd-aG00oq
She talks about the media's role and the elected politicians. This testimony sounded real to me (and I did listen to the focus group you linked to. Remember to account for the selection process of who they're talking to).
Thanks, Kelly. I listened to this. She is very intelligent, principled, and exceptionally angry and aggressive. I agree with her on the existence of perverse incentives affecting media behavior. I don't agree with her premise that Biden having gotten the delegate votes and voter approval to date automatically and permanently immunizes him from evaluation as time goes on, particularly as many who have supported him (like me) see, with our own eyes and hear him with our own ears and are not feeling that he is right for the presidency now. If he were to have a stroke and be unable to speak at all, by her logic, the press should still support him because she said so. So yes, this person has some legitimate suspicions and concerns, but I don't agree with her conclusions, and don't find her threatening and hostile tone to increase her credibility as an expert on journalism or politics.
Absolutely, the selection process of participants in the focus groups Sarah has organized is essential to understand. With the goal of beating Trump, Sarah assembles groups that might be persuaded to vote Democratic, or at least to reject Trump.