Republican Candidates Wise Up – Dodge State-Run Media Interviews
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, July 19, 2010, 11:49 AM
Good. Republican candidates are getting smart and avoiding the state-run media.
And, the state-run media can’t stand it.
Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul are taking some good advise from confidants and staying clear of the democratic-media complex. These outlets have noticed and are upset that Republican candidates won’t let them smear and slander them like they did the tea party movement.
Liberal Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post whined about it today:
Some of the most conservative and combative Republicans running for Congress are convinced that the media have it in for them.
But these candidates seem to regard it as an affront when reporters challenge them on their past statements and inconsistencies, which is a basic function of journalism. They are avoiding or limiting interviews with all but the friendliest faces as a way of circumventing the press. And some of them delight in skewering the mainstream media, a tactic that plays well with their base.
Since her primary victory in Nevada, Senate candidate Sharron Angle has spoken mainly with Fox News, sympathetic radio hosts, columnist George Will, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and, in an online video, Christian activist Ralph Reed. Angle told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody last week that she’s not “running from the media,” but that “the whole point of an interview is to use it, like they say ‘earned media,’ to earn something with it, and I’m not going to earn anything from people who are there to badger me and use my words to batter me with. . . . Will they let me say I need $25 from a million people, go to SharronAngle.com, send money?”
Another Republican, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, told tea party activists they have to “control the message” — through advertising — to combat efforts “to paint us as something we’re not,” because “we’re not going to get a lot of help from the newspapers.” Both seem to think the media’s primary role should be to help them — raise money, carry a message — rather than hold them accountable.
Nicolle Wallace, the former Bush White House communications director, says candidates such as Angle and Paul have no need “to have a relationship with the national media. . . . They’re probably right in feeling the media haven’t figured out how to cover the tea party movement with objectivity and fairness.” But she said candidates must be “confident enough in the substance of their platform” to speak to local reporters.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, says that “demonizing the mainstream press limits the candidate’s ability to take the next step” and appeal to moderate voters. “In some cases they’re making a bet they’ll be able to speak exclusively to their base and ride the anger in the broader electorate to victory. That’s a gamble.”
The candidates, some of them political neophytes, may be facing some “gotcha” questions, but that is part of the obstacle course of national politics. More experienced politicians anticipate such queries and find ways to brush them off.
Baloney. Don’t believe their lies.
The state-run media has proven itself time and time again that it has absolutely no love for conservatives. Stay away from these horrible propagandists. There will be plenty of other opportunities to get your message out.
NewsBusters has more.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 108 Comments
Rachelle commented:
No honest candidate should expose himself to the propaganda machine that calls itself the mainstream media. It’s ‘mainstream’ only in the sense that Herr Goebbels was mainstream.
Remember what that idiot Couric did to Palin in her ambush journalism.
By contrast, with Obama Couric all but went under the table and unzipped his pants for him–and maybe she did off camera.
Reach around the ‘media’ and give them no interviews. They will only stab you in the heart.
mark commented:
“But these candidates seem to regard it as an affront when reporters challenge them on their past statements and inconsistencies, which is a basic function of journalism.” Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post.
Howard, have you heard of Barack Obama? Plenty of fodder for you to work on. Get cracking.
DaMav commented:
Kurz seems to be increasingly drawn to the Dark Side. He used to at least make an effort to try and see both sides even if he almost always ended up on the liberal one.
The lamestream media deserves no respect because it has turned itself into a tool for liberals. Why should conservatives have to run that gauntlet when there are alternative ways to get information out?
Sarah Palin led the way in this new approach after being severely burned in 2008. She showed through Facebook and Fox and the internet that it was not necessary to approach the lamestream as a supplicant. It’s a whole new ball game — you betcha!
ADVERTISEMENT
Feeney commented:
Howard, you and your pals on the pansy left are on your way out. Hang in there till retirement.
Lance commented:
If republicans truly get it – it’s about time.
What good is an information source if that source is dishonest. No matter what you say to the liberal media, you have to know they have an agenda other than an honest interview. The Rand Paul interview is a perfect example.
IMO the old media doesn’t even matter anymore. Intellectual honesty is a must.
s/w2001 commented:
Rachelle, I suspect he would prefer Andy Cooper.
kansas commented:
The candidates, some of them political neophytes, may be facing some “gotcha” questions, but that is part of the obstacle course of national politics.
Just some gotcha questions? How about all gotcha questions. Meanwhile, the Democrat incumbents get Al Gore tongue baths.
Guy commented:
I was wondering when conservative candidates were going to figure out that trying to get a fair shake out of the “mainstream” media was pointless. Rather than give them interviews to cut and paste into slanderous sound bites, it makes sense to ignore them completely and take their message directly to the voters. TV commercials and radio spots exposing the lies of their opponents, combined with internet pod casts and talk radio interviews would be the way to go in my opinion.
With the liberal progressive left controlling 90% the media in this country, it is all but impossible to avoid getting blindsided by a reporter with an agenda. Controlling the playing field is the only way to avoid the old “so, are you still beating your wife?” type of questioning. They’ve proven that they cannot be trusted to be fair, so cut them out of the loop and let them scramble around looking for something to report on. Let them interview Democrats. Half of what comes out of the Democrats’ mouths has been stupid and embarrassing lately anyway. Let them keep talking. They’ll sink their own ship …
brooklyn commented:
Of course a sound Candidate for any Office should be considerate of the source, but Mr. Hoft I have to politely disagree in this case.
Christie can handle any Media Source it seems. Quality Candidates can face anything. Jindal, Brewer, Pawlenty, Romney, Ryan, Boehner, Bachmann, etc., all seem to have no problem with providing a fine example within the Democratic Partisan Media Monopoly.
We need to attract, must never be afraid, nor offer such insulated Offerings and Fashion, it cannot handle a question.
No doubt, caution and reason is essential, but the shutting down of access is actually a sign of weakness.
That is what Democrats do with FOX NEWS!
If Rand Paul had not put his foot firmly in his mouth in the first place, perhaps if he were a more savvy offering, we wouldn’t be bothered with this at all.
right4us commented:
And, let’s not forget that many of the Dems won’t go on FOX.
Nor, would they even debate in a FOX debate. If it is not a leftwing shilling Democrat media outlet, they (Dems) are too dishonest to face any challenging questions.
And, NOT gotcha questions, like the left continually tries on the right from their supporting cohorts – just questions about facts, reality and their failed policies. And, I bet they won’t in the coming future.
chuck in st paul commented:
Charlie Brown. Lucy. Football.
Conservative Pols. LSM. “We’ll treat you fairly.”
Any questions?
IOPian commented:
Kurtz describes the very tactics of liberals and progressives like Obama avoiding FoxNews:
“But these candidates seem to regard it as an affront when reporters challenge them on their past statements and inconsistencies, which is a basic function of journalism.”
eaglewingz08 commented:
What gotcha questions did the national media ask Barack or Biden during 2008? Boxers or briefs? Yeah, right.
The national leftwing media is a DNC tool and republicans are avoiding it like the plague with good reason. If the media were evenhanded, they would not have had their first question to Obama at his much belated news conference, to be whether he felt the DC earthquake (though on November 4, 2010 they might, but I doubt it, ask him whether he felt the voter’s earthquake sending his dem socialist allies packing from Congress).
neomom commented:
Excellent, now lets get them on the same page with the same message and we may not have to turn our homes into WACO compounds.
Galt commented:
Makes sense to me — hell, even as a viewer I skip the MSM because I reject the terms of their debate. So how can I fault a candidate for doing the same? I say: reward the fair-minded media. I read the WSJ every day and I have confidence in its writers to expose any wingnuttery in the GOP (just as I have confidence in the MSM to PROP UP and PROTECT the moonbattiness of the Dem party).
Who’s Kurtz and why do I care what he thinks? If I have to debate him it’ll be on my terms. And as a voter I’ll reward candidates who likewise reject his terms. Because he sounds like an opponent.
Rock commented:
What is laughingly referred to as the Main Stream Media, is made up of Socialist pigs, or their lap dogs salivating at their master’s feet for the next little scrap, geez these slugs make me sick, lemmings heading for the Cliff, and clueless to their own demise.
kato commented:
I’m surprised they have time to interview Republicans. They’re so busy covering up for their jive messiah these days.
Ass kissing has become ass covering. The Jivemaster ain’t got no clothes.
Mrs. X commented:
Fine. They don’t report the truth anyway so what good is it? They are like sharks circling around the chum…
Give it right back to these jerks!
Klein Verzet commented:
“But these candidates seem to regard it as an affront when reporters challenge them on their past statements and inconsistencies, which is a basic function of journalism.”
Even from so far away as the Dutch coast, the retort to this is as obvious as a rose one a mountain of manure: “If that really is the case, where the hell were you 2 years ago, when a certain someone was campaigning on a flimsy ‘hopey-changey’ ticket?”
My G.d, the arrogance of these people is galling!
Opus #6 commented:
I wish conservative candidates all the best in November. I’ll be voting for them.
fightinggranny commented:
The MSM has no respectability, values or principles. We don’t listen to them anyway.
They didn’t vet the Cheat in Chief during the last election. They have become obsolete.
!
donh commented:
The Rand Paul interview with Rachael Maddow proves the need for conservatives to find or create media alternatives. When a true smaller government conservative makes it onto the political stage, the first question the socialist media asks is why do you want to repeal the civil rights act. The second question they ask is when did you stop beating your wife.
aro5o75 commented:
Oh yeah, Obowma was pummeled by the state-run media with those ‘gotcha’ questions was’nt he.
What a load of crap. The state-run media is as afraid of the Tea Party as Obowma and Pelosi.
LimoLibsStink commented:
0bama:
Let me be clear. There is a dangerous movement afoot. Republicans are refusing interviews with my cronies in the NYT and the WaPo.
Howard Kurtz said so in the WaPo. So, that makes it a fact! My limousine is running and I have a meeting with David Axelrod and Howard Kurtz. Good day.
serfer62 commented:
Its not msm, its MFM!
oldguy commented:
How about LDM (Lame Duck Media)?
John Doe commented:
Whining about pols not wanting to be confronted about past statements!!!! Try not licking the sac of the zero in the whitehouse and do your job for a change. When you finish discrediting the hate-America first dem party,then we might talk.Til then,bite me.
Michael commented:
Why are we still getting political advice & commentary from Nicole Wallace??? How many more losing campaigns will it take for her punditry value go to zero?
CNC commented:
There is an alternative to not doing interviews with the biased media. First require that two or more or your staff also be allowed to HD film and record the interview. Use these recordings to show when an interview is biased. Also require the media interview to include in any broadcast a notice across the screen whether or not the interview has been edited for any reason. There is real need for promoting this type of transparency as Breitbart has done with the black woman from the USDA.
sjs commented:
Yellow stream media!
aprilnovember811 commented:
Stay away from the old media. They are nothing but communist propoganda. No one takes them seriously anymore. They need to die a slow, painful death.
dissident commented:
Let’s be real. Someone that prescribes second amendment remedies, amongst a host of other crazy things, is bound to go down in flames.
Brian commented:
Michael I agree, but also it was Nicole Wallace that had Palin do the Katie interview from what I heard. She should go away.
googiesmama commented:
Nicolle Wallace is a jerk and a detriment to the Republican party. Conservatives would be doing well to steer clear of her too.
marty g commented:
When I lived in Sitka, AK, Sarah Palin came to the airport while she was campaigning for governor. She didn’t tell the local(and very liberal) media, instead she told the local republican party person. From there it was word of mouth. Brilliant! The local lib paper was pi**ed! “How dare she bypass us!”
I’ve been a fan of hers ever since.
mg
Yehudit commented:
“….Both seem to think the media’s primary role should be to help them — raise money, carry a message — rather than hold them accountable…..”
Why shouldn’t they think that? That’s how the media sees its role with regard to Obama.
Mark commented:
Why anyone gets interviewed without their own camera going these days I will always wonder. Master editing manipulators legacy media is, trustworthy they are not, agenda they have.
Galt commented:
Bringing your own camera to an interview only helps a little. They will still run the conversation on their own terms, sticking to their own faulty premises.
Remember: they think it’s the government that creates jobs. They think wealth is a static substance that cannot be created or destroyed, just redistributed. They think anyone who opposes race-based hiring is a racist (I know!). They think conservatives are evil and individual liberty is scary.
In other words, these people are idiots. Who wants to be seen arguing with an idiot? Even in unedited footage?