@deegeese In townhalls they dont "pushback" or fact check... never have as far as I know.. the format is always typically Q&A without much interference fromt he host.

And yea, an unbias news agency has a moral (and arguably a legal one) to host the front-running political candidates equally. As for white supremacy, would you be ok with them blocking any coverage of Biden ont he basis of his pro-segregation stance in politics? Or would you scream foul if they intentionally black balled him for his extremely racist career?

@freemo You're conflating blacklisting a candidate with choosing to give them a platform to promote their views. Surely you can see the difference?

@deegeese Ok let me rephrase.. would you be ok with them choosing not to give biden a platform by refusing to host him in debates and town halls?

@freemo No, and you're engaging in whattaboutism.

@deegeese yup, and what aboutism is not a bad thing... that is how you can see your logic being applied to things that arent just helpful for your biases but against your biases and see why its a horrible idea to news agencies deplatform presidential candidates based on their personal judgements (rather than that of a court).

@freemo Whattaboutism is a bad faith debating tactic from someone unable to defend their original position.

@deegeese then it wasnt whataboutism if thats the definition you want to use.

@barney That could be a valid argument... like if they gave this meeting to Trump and Biden requested a similar venue and was denied, then id completely support your stance and see CNN as making a mistake here.

As far as I know that didnt happen, they didnt show Trump preference over Biden as far as I know.

I expect that #CNN probably plans a similar 2-hour special for Biden (although I haven't actually seen that reported). I still think that having prime-time specials for candidates a year before the primaries even start is an abnormal grab for ratings.

My main point, though, is that last night's debacle was totally unacceptable at any point in the political process. Spending two hours airing lies, many designed to incite violence, is not excused by later giving equal time to the truth.

@freemo

@barney To some extent I do agree, if political candidates are lying and still primary candidates and given the airtime that goes with that, there is a problem somewhere.... the problem isnt with CNN though as far as I can tell, the problem lies with some combination of the courts for not acting to curb Trump sooner, or the general public for showing such levels of support for such a horrific candidate.

That said, while Trump is one of the worst examples of a bad candidate by the same token we have a pretty close second in office right now, Biden. So the failure that led to him getting in office isnt much better than the failure that is allowing Trump reach the level of popularity he has.

CNN did what they did last night. The courts did not do it.

CNN put a rapist on television. They let him slut-shame the woman he raped while the audience laughed at her. They allowed him to spew violence-inciting lies for two hours.

The answer to the question of whether or not that is okay does not have anything to do with whether Biden is "a bad candidate." So I invite you to reflect, privately if you wish, on why you chose to express that opinion in this context.

@freemo

@barney

Yes CNN did it not hte courts... the courts are the only ones responsible for denying presidential candidates, not CNN.. so CNN did the right choice, as disgusting as he is. It is not their place to judge which presidential candidates meet their standards to have a voice.. its a shame he got TV time and that he is running at all, but they did right by giving him the same opportunity they will give any other legally recognized candidate.

The **last** thing anyone should be demanding is that news organizations pick what candidates get platforms.

CNN put Trump on TV. They did it because he is a political candidate, and they presumably intend to give his opponents equal time. I question their timing, but not their fairness.

CNN allowed a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped, on national TV, while the audience laughed at her. They allowed him to spew lie after unchallenged lie, for two hours, thereby facilitating a violent insurrection against the US. Is this okay? And why is your dislike for Biden relevant to your answer?

@freemo

@barney

> CNN put Trump on TV. They did it because he is a political candidate, and they presumably intend to give his opponents equal time. I question their timing, but not their fairness.

Agreed

> CNN allowed a rapist to slut-shame the woman he raped, on national TV, while the audience laughed at her.

As I said I havent seen the actual town hall yet so I cant speak to this point. do you have the specific quote or a link to a video. Until I see it I cant judge this point either way or if your characterization of it is accurate.

> They allowed him to spew lie after unchallenged lie, for two hours, thereby facilitating a violent insurrection against the US. Is this okay?

Is it ok, nope, is it normal, yup... This applies to every Biden Townhall, every Trump Townhall and virtually every town hall we have had. Fact checking has never been an element of town halls, the format has been the norm for decades to allow Q&A and for the host to do little more than facilitate the audience to ask questions... we have never fact checked and have always let the lies from all candidates fly... maybe we should change that, but Trump is hardly new, why not cry fowl when Biden was allowed to lie and not get fact checked?

> And why is your dislike for Biden relevant to your answer?

Because it shows precedence and is a good litmus test to check if you are being impartial towards the candidates and holding them to equal standards.. Biden as a pro-segregationist has an abysmally racist history, would his racist history be a good enough reason for CNN to refuse to host town halls for him, probably not... Usually applying our standards to the things we support is a good litmus test to see if we truly think our standards are good ones to hold.

@realcaseyrollins Yea, though this is worse than usual, to want to ban a whole network for simply hosting a town hall...

@VoxDei @freemo I actually can’t really think of many of #Trump’s claims that #KaitlanCollins didn’t push back against tbh

@realcaseyrollins @freemo Well, fair enough, like I say I haven't seen it (I don't even live in the States). I read a summary in the Guardian, and nobody's going to call them neutral on Trump. Their claim was that Collins lost control and was steamrollered by Trump, and even if she tried she was unable to do anything. If that's untrue then what I said may not apply, though remains true in general terms. 🙂

@VoxDei @freemo I’d recommend listening to the town hall when you get a chance. #CNN hasn’t released the full presentation for free in video form, but they did post the audio version of it as a podcast episode:

https://narwhal.city/posts/18992

@realcaseyrollins @freemo I'm... not really sure I can bring myself to listen to an hour of Trump ranting. I don't even get a vote. Life's too short, and all that. I accept this limits the value of my opinion on the thing that I don't want to listen to. 🙂

@VoxDei @freemo Fair enough. Although he only spoke for maybe 60% of the time; #KaitlanCollins spoke a bunch, and there was a lot of audience applause as well. Surprisingly pro #Trump audience, for one hand picked by #CNN…

@VoxDei

I havent watched it either, so maybe i will change my mind after watching it...

But...

To point #1, I dont seem to recall them **ever** fact checking a town hall.. Generally they faciliatate Q&A and dont get into fact checking. That is for debates and even then the host doesnt fact check thats for the other candidates to do on eachother.

#2 That sounds like more an issue with the general public... If the town hall was open to everyone and they happened to favor trump supporters, likely because anti-trump people refused to go, thats not CNNs fault... What almost certainly happened is Trump supporters overwhelmingly wanted to go and non-trump supporters overwhlemingly didnt and wanted to boycott it... so everyone who actually showed up was 99% Trump supporters... cant blame CNN for that, only person to blame would be the ones boycotting it and not going to ask those tough questions

Town halls have **always** been about the candidate saying whatever they want, thats how its always been, thats kinda the whole point of a town hall, to hear the candidate speak without being challenged (the other formats we have are where they are challenged). At least by the host, obviously questions from the audience can challenge the speaker, and should, but thats the democrats mistake for not bothering to show up.

@freemo As I understand it CNN selected the audience to be New Hampshire registered Republican voters and non-aligned voters planning to vote in the Republican primary. So it's not that the democrats didn't bother coming, they weren't invited. Probably to avoid a punch-up in the audience.

Maybe I don't understand the town-hall format. But if you know the candidate is going to say things that are not merely untrue in your opinion but have been found to be untrue in court multiple times, I don't think it's right to let them do that again without challenge, whatever the format.

@VoxDei If we want to start fact checking town halls we have to do the same to Biden when he talks... and other candidates... and pretty much every word out of either of their mouths tends to be a lie... so that would be fun to see.

@freemo I'm not limiting my opinion to Trump! If you want to be elected to the highest offices you need to face the hardest questions, Biden absolutely needs to be challenged as well!

@VoxDei If the town hall format were to be changed and thats the new format I might not mind.. but traditionally that hasnt been the case.

@freemo OK, well, maybe it's the format I have a problem with then. We don't really do that in the UK, we have TV debates (some), we have one-on-one interviews, but we don't really have a here-say-what-you-want-for-an-hour thing. We have party political broadcasts, but they're clearly labelled as such and don't have a moderator, it's just a canned broadcast that the party prepares but paid for by the state (for parties that have seats in Parliament already).

If a candidate wants to speak somewhere then of course they can do so, but they aren't generally carried live for an hour, you just get a couple of highlights on the news. And the TV channel would probably be obliged to present the opposing view or be subject to sanction by the regulator - there is an obligation for broadcasts to be politically balanced here that doesn't exist in the US.

I guess this comes back to the original point then? If all it was supposed to be was a Trump rally (and I'm not really seeing the difference between your description of a "town hall" and a political rally? Other than maybe the audience can ask more questions?), then CNN is responsible for their own choice to carry it. People who don't like Trump rallies are likely to be turned off by that being carried uncritically? I accept the point about if it's for the Republican primary then a Republican audience might be normal, but at the same time you're broadcasting it to everyone, Republican or not. Why is there an obligation on CNN or any network to carry that? Wait for the actual presidential race and then don't softball him (or any candidate)?

@VoxDei Thats fair... yea its a weird format specifically for a news reporter to host I suppose... but its been the norm in the USA to do this town all format since forever.

I would be ok with changing the format for everyone... in general what I want is something where the news agencies arent deciding who gets a voice and where all candidates are treated by the same standard.

@VoxDei Oh and as for the republican only audience.. if thats the case I guess we would have to judge it by past town halls... it sounds like this is a town hall for the republican primary and not the presidency.. in which case having a rebpulican only audience may be normal.

@MargaretSefton I dont think Trump should get a fair shake at all..I think the courts should e3xpose his crimes and once proven he should be barred from running...

What we shouldnt expect is CNN or any other news agency to pick which candidates get a voice and which dont.

@freemo Let's just hope he is convicted and our government decides he is ineligible.

@MargaretSefton I would be very happy to hear Trump is proven to have done things that make him ineligible for presidency. That would be wonderful.

If I had one wish from a magic genie I'd probably wish that Biden and Trump were ineligible to run for president in 2024.

@freemo I am not simpatico with you on that latter point.

@freemo Otherwise it very well could be "fascism, here we come."

@MargaretSefton yes if Trump wins we certainly will be in a dangerous place as far as fascism goes, I agree.

@SallyStrange hahah, right, cause addressing fascism means letting the news pick our presidential candidates for us...yea ok...You have some pretty backwards views of what facism is.

@freemo @SallyStrange Fascism has truly become a nonsense word, meaning “politics I do not like”…

@SallyStrange @freemo

> this is how fascism wins. By convincing people like you that organic expressions of outrage at fascism ARE fascism.

Or maybe this is like totalitarianism wins: when you believe that a discussion about Trump is important because it will affect the fate of USA.

If you read 1984 of Orwell, there are suspects that all these wars between Democratic Party and Republican are mainly a weapon of mass distraction. Take a rather genuine Democratic president as Obama. Did he changed the finance system, despite the 2008 crisis and corruption? No. Did he really reduced the outrageous costs of healthcare system? No.

Something after an election can change, but I suspect that the "big-picture" is already decided. Hence, a figure as Trump is useful because he is a clown, he can grab the attention, and you stop thinking to the big picture.