Twenty-four hours after the word “panic” appeared on television screens, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell provides what he calls “calm analysis” of the first presidential debate of the 2024 election.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: https://www.msnbc.com/information/download-msnbc-app-n1241692
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: https://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: https://www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: https://www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: https://link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc-daily-signup
Find MSNBC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSNBC
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/msnbc
#Biden #Trump #PresidentialDebate
“Last night in Donald Trump’s first debate appearance since January 6th, the debate moderators did not ask him what the January 6th committee very much wanted to ask him, what were you doing for those 187 minutes?”
“Instead … the very first question to Donald Trump was:”
CNN: You want to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the U.S. How will you ensure that that doesn’t drive prices even higher?’
I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?
A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.
If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?
In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.
I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?
A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.
If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?
In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.
Disclaimer: I haven’t watched it.