@davew Prediction: precisely zero journalists will follow this rule. Disqualifying.

@davew You are either a Journalist, or you promote lies for clout.

@davew This is the answer. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Go directly to media jail.

@davew not a bad idea

@davew
Or contest the lie and confront the liar until either the liar gives up, or the interview is over.

@davew

@davew thank you have been screaming this at
The tv For years Now.

And frankly it would Make NEWS! (The first 30 times). There could be a count on the nightly news of the names of news orgs and journos who refused to continue.
And then it would save your org and all of us time and money.
I believe you dont do this because you want the next one
Getting called on in next presser
Getting answer to your next shouted question in the gaggle
Getting the next interview
Scoop
Job

@davew An alternative scenario is to call out that first lie, don't let them move on, don't let them gloss over it or tell another lie unanswered, and make THEM get up and leave. It makes for satisfying closure, though of course there are filthy sleazebags like Vance and Cruz who'll just continue denying it. Frump's head would explode (and then we might be rid of him!)

@davew Also, candidates, do the same in job interviews.

@davew Exactly this indeed…

@davew

Otherwise they're stenographers, not journalists.

@davew I'd be happy to give them a warning.

"That's obviously not true. Care to change your statement?"

Then they get exposed and are forced to either tell the truth (hah!), or get left sitting in the dark.

@davew I think I prefer a fact check after the interview instead of journalists deciding what is a lie and who may speak.

@davew it would be fantastic to see Rachel Maddow hang up on Harris the moment she claims she and Biden "ended the pandemic" but I wouldn't hold my breath.

@davew but! If they do this, the person they were interviewing will not come back for another interview! They would be forced to go investigate and report on things instead of being handed bullshit on a plate! Can you imagine the chaos?

@davew That's not going to happen. I saw Jake Tapper do it once. I forgot who he was interviewing. I suspect CNN reprimanded Tapper because it hasn't happened again despite numerous opportunities.

Boycott advertisers, cancel subscriptions, cut out your viewing and tell the owners why. The journalists work for them, not for us

@davew then most interviews with #TheDonOLD will end in the first 30 seconds!

@davew
how do people react so calmly to being lied to? journalists not calling out lies are effectively (metaphorically)watching rape in silence; silence IS complicity

@davew repeat: it is all about the future: next job promo soundbyte
Interview question scoop for the news org rather than about truth in the present moment

@davew
Needs an old rule for editors.

@davew I like the sentiment of your post, 100 % ! I always thought that journalists have historically been there to report news to the people and to inform them. And to fact check and to make sure democracy doesn't go downhill. Not to help making profit for few and not to amplify countless lies.

@davew @pattykimura

If you can convince the editors of that, you win a prize

@davew Yup, do that and watch just how quickly American politics change.

Mind you, there will always be scum sucking networks like Fox that will air any lie unchecked but that's on them.

@davew
If only!!

@davew It would be enough if journalists did not report these statements uncritically. If their public officials are liars, then the public should know.

@davew Yes please

@davew If you can't go full Paxman, at least don't pander to the lying arseholes. Fully agree.

@davew would be a brilliant idea if most journalists were honest and unbiased. Unfortunately TV hosts apply double standards, easy questions for the politicians they like, and making their best to discredit the other ones.

Imagine the scene:
TV anchor: So, Mr Sanders, your manifesto says you want to tax the rich, but everyone knows that's impossible, so what would you do were you to be elected?
Bernie: Of cours it is possible, and I...
TV anchor: That's an egregious lie! End of the interview!

@davew @mastodonmigration Or just don’t interview a known habitual liar in the first place. The only reason I can see for doing that is the sensationalist promotion of misinformation. It doesn’t matter if the person in question is a political candidate, presidential or otherwise. Promoting any candidate’s lies along with their disgusting ideology isn’t required of private companies by the First Amendment.

@davew @lisamelton at that point there would be no more interviews with politicians. Can only be a positive thing

@davew@mastodon.social FUCKING THIS!!!!

@davew Then the non journalists get free reign to promote those lies.

@davew Alternative rule: put those enhanced interview techniques the CIA spent way too much money at the cost of way too many human beings into practice and treat the interview as if it were an interrogation. Think of yourself not as a journalist, but an inquisitor sent by the Powers That Be to extract information from the interviewee, no matter the cost, for a nebulously-defined ‘greater good’—in this case, ‘the preservation of democracy’, whatever that entails.

@davew if we’re just spitballing, just make it illegal for politicians/candidates to lie. I mean, if a pol makes an objectively false statement, then any citizen they represent ought to be able to sue them for like dereliction or whatever. Because looking at how many reporters are still on xitter, the level of integrity needed for reporters to brutally shutdown liars or racists just isn’t there. They need the clicks/engagement or whatever metrics they’re evaluated on too much.

@davew the capitalist corporate media are for entertainment, not news gathering, hence the constant bullshit.

@davew It's a great idea. But being able to make the call 'That is a lie' on the spot might be difficult without fact checking. Networks would be uncomfortable. Fact checking takes time. We need to harness technology to do it in real time.

@davew I wish people would just stop with "people need to see this" bullshit. we've seen more than enough and it just feeds into his just lie enough times and many believe it. They are accomplices

@davew Manna from heaven

@davew the media has sold out any chance of ethics. Many have made careers from the trump era. Look at the salaries and ratings boost from the spectacle, they have sold their souls for this. Trained seals begging for the next fish from him. They are ALL his greatest enablers

@davew Nah, man. Call them on it. Ask until answered. Sit there for an hour looking at them if that's what it takes. "Sir/madam, that's a lie...evidence, evidence,...would you care to answer truthfully?" blink blink, stare...then actually air 60 minutes of you just looking at each other.

@davew Adamantium Testicles would make such a booming racket. Attached to a journalist with moxie, it’s dangerous. Maybe even to the point where it could resurrect the Fourth Estate. Walk softly and waggle those huge clangers.

@davew In the end money overruled all reason. It pays more to let them lie, then print their lies verbatim as if that's enough on its own. People will surely just get on their own that it's a lie, right? (The funny thing is, apparently memetic thinking is so powerful that even knowing it is a lie still affects people's thought patterns when they see it repeated enough.) And of course the right knows this and has taken full advantage...

(And yes, a handful on the left too. It needs to stop)

@davew This is the way

@davew Bravo!!! 👏👏👏🤘

@davew An exception to this rule: if you can counter their lies with factual information then you may stick around and ask further questions. Gotta be good at this though, if someone's willing to tell a lie then they're going to be slippery and try to evade.

Yes, I know, this is just gotcha journalism you might think but no, just regular investigative journalism here, sorry that the questions aren't going easy on you. Stop lying and they'll stop.