Media Analysis & Criticism

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Media Analysis & Criticism

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Discendo Vox posted:

On the Media has a good, if basic, discussion of how to handle interviewing someone like RFK Jr. (including an argument for why just not addressing them doesn't work):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-cover-candidate-rfk-jr-on-the-media

One recommendation that stands out is that print interviews make it much easier to handle a disingenuous actor because you don't have to do as much on-the-spot work. Regardless, for someone sufficiently sophisticated in their rhetoric, a lot of prepwork is necessary.

Fascinating; thanks for the link, although it appears to have been transcribed by a dyslexic AI.

I was particularly intrigued by Merlan's contention that trying to ignore them or censor them isn't effective:

quote:

Anna Merlan: This was a very early example of media platforms just not really being ready to cover Kennedy's candidacy. What ABC did was they sat down for a fairly conventional Kennedy interview with Kennedy, but during it, he did what he does which is he started spouting COVID and vaccine misinformation. ABC made the decision to just cut that portion from the interview, and then tell their audience that that's what they were doing.

Host: We should note that during our conversation Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines. Data shows that the COVID-19 vaccines prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. He also made misleading claims about the relationship between vaccination and autism.

Anna Merlan: I think that it was a well-intentioned decision, but what it did was it gave Kennedy an incredibly powerful talking point to say, "You see, my views on COVID and vaccines are so powerful and so threatening to the establishment that they cannot see the light of day."

given the blowback to the recent revelations about government's attempts to censor media & pressure media to censor.

She goes on to point out:

quote:

Brandy Zadrozny: I think that's the biggest complaint that I get is, why are you reporting on this? Just ignore them and they will go away.

Anna Merlan: Sure. I think that is a very attractive viewpoint that I certainly hear a lot of. I don't think that it is our job as journalists to ignore reality. I also think that when we ignore candidates making false, misleading, or polarizing claims, we fail to accurately reflect or take the temperature on what is happening in this country, which is an increasing amount of political extremism and polarization. I really do not believe that ignoring things makes them go away. At the same time, and I think this was a conversation that we had ad nauseam in the Trump era, we do know that coverage, even negative coverage can have the effect of increasing a candidate's name recognition.

There are some people, I don't think it's a huge plurality of voters, but there are some people who, the more someone is debunked in the "mainstream media", the more attractive that candidate becomes to them. As journalists, the way that we talk about a system impacts that system. We cannot just be observers, whether we like it or not. This is an incredibly tangled tricky area for us to get into but I will simply never believe that the answer is ignoring something that we don't like or that is polarizing or that is false. I just don't believe it.

This gibes with what I've been taught about media analysis & with have seen firsthand.

Thanks again for this.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jul 7, 2023

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 06:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 17:21

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I was referencing the attempts to "deplatform" conspiracy theorists, Vox; the quotes I cited are very much relevant to the government's efforts to silence its critics through pressure on platforms, which as Merlan points out results in a boomerang & martyr effect on its targets.

As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Suppression only leads to further conspiratorial thinking, as Merlan points out.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 06:55

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Vox, you're taking things I said in another thread & distorting them in this one. If you want to argue with me about the federal ruling then please do so by engaging me in that thread.

I was expressing in this thread that Marlin, as a media expert, confirmed what I was taught regarding media censorship & deplatforming, as well as what I've observed when that happens.

As she also said:

quote:

Anna Merlan: One thing that misinformation peddlers do is they bank on the fact that if they put certain claims on mainstream platforms, they will get removed either under pandemic-era misinformation policies or even before that, just under general medical misinformation policies. There's a gap of time between when you put something on a mainstream platform and when it is taken down that allows a claim to start getting speed, and then when it is taken down, you can use it to feed back into a claim and a talking point that again, your information is so powerful and so dangerous to the establishment that it is being censored.

CNN was a little bit more unusual. Essentially, what happened is that a CNN political journalist named Michael Smerconish put Kennedy on and managed to use the word vaccines exactly once in his introduction, and then proceeded to have a very friendly jocular interview with Mr. Kennedy about his campaign that managed to not ask about his anti-vaccine activism at all. They spent more time talking about Mr. Smerconish's fandom of Cheryl Hines, Mr. Kennedy's wife.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jul 7, 2023

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 07:07

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I guess we'll just have to disagree with our contextual interpretations, vox, as others have done with various interpretations of yours throughout this thread.

"Attempting to force claims" appears to be a common theme in this thread.

eta: I do thank you for resurrecting this thread bc it's enlightening to go back & read its earlier posts in context of current knowledge.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jul 7, 2023

# ¿ Jul 7, 2023 07:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Media Analysis & Criticism