President Trump, Sarah Sanders, Chris Wallace discussed on Forum

KQED Radio
| KQED Radio

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Most vulnerable point of entry is. Statistic. I didn't know if you're gonna use it. But I studied up on this, do, you know, where those four thousand people come they're captured the court, not always certainly the State Department says there hasn't been any terrorist found coming across. Land and it's spicy. It's all of the above the one thing that you're forgetting the most vulnerable point of entry that we have in this country is our southern border, and we have to protect it and the more. Across the southern border, Sarah, they're coming and they're being stopped. Well, there we have a pretty good example of work last film. But also many examples coming from Kristen Nielsen and also not only from Sarah Sanders, but the president himself that just don't square with the facts. So, you know, this was I think what's newsworthy about what Chris Wallace did is that it's newsworthy. Just it isn't we don't push back. The way the say the BBC does you know there? There are British Carson Wentz. Jeremy Paxman is a famous one who just literally ask the same question in real time fifteen times, Eric without editing. And so that you can see exactly how much is is being evaded when you directly go to it. Chris Wallace did a couple of rounds. She said the same thing about the most vulnerable point. And then talking about the fourth. I'm sorry. Sarah Sanders, and and Chris Wallace did. Go through that a couple of times. And the problem was that they only have a couple of times on Fox TV, but you could see her effort to just conflict four thousand most vulnerable point is the southern border four thousand the most vulnerable point is southern border to things that may or may not be true. But she's trying very hard to put them together. We've seen that sort of confession technique in other administrations and many many times. But here he wasn't winning or get away from it. That was big news, especially because it was FOX mean we've seen Jake tapper do similar things on CNN. It doesn't get quite the same play. But it was wonderfully satisfying to watch. Now, we can do real time fact checking on this because we pretty much know his points. We may not be able to get all of them. But you could get some of them, Jim. Jim fallow suggests may be doing ESPN style, scroll down the back. Jim Jim Fowler's of the Atlantic may be down the right or across the bottom. He even suggested may be a continuous oral commentary Isla MS T three K mystery science theater three thousand see the back heads of the correspondents literally talking back to the screen, which is what they do in their mock criticism of really bad science fiction films. One thing he is concerned about, but he says, it's still a good option. But it shouldn't be alone is the democratic political response of this is an overtly political discussion there should be an overtly political response that would be fair. His problem is an our problem is that these are just two political opinions and reasonable people disagreeing, we know just by dint of the unbelievable volume of lies. The president generates you know, on a minute by minute basis that this is going to be sheer fantasy land. And it's almost dignifying it by saying, it's a reasonable. He's you know, reasonable people can disagree argument. This is plagued the media's coverage of global warming for a long time. You put on one person who's paid by the oil company, and whose extreme outlier and have it have him suggest that there is a disagreement within the scientific community when there is not. So you've got the problem of perception there, but you can fix it with real time. Fact checking prior to that response. There's also the partisan you alluded to the whole partisan side of this issue. I mean, the president has said that the Democrats are blocking him the Democrats have said that the Democratic Party spokespeople. Who said this is immoral to build a wall? You've got a real divide and extraordinary divide here among different sides. And. Prisons, blaming the Democrats. The Democrats are blaming the president. So to have at least some response and some feedback from the other party would seem to be perfectly normal and in the plantings. Yeah, I completely agree with you. And by the way, there isn't just disagreement between the two parties the president himself disagrees with himself. He was perfectly willing to sign an agreement to keep the government open absent mention of the wall. You know, if this is of such deep national security importance, he probably wouldn't have agreed to that. But he did it was all set up. And then he was knocked off that position by of all people and Coulter is what it seems. Also, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. Okay. A combined effort, I think. Yeah. It was the, you know, I guess you'd call them the three horsemen of the apocalypse or something like that. But the thing is is that the. Undue attention to and the rapid response to you know, people like these who I guess Trump assumes represents his base. I don't think that's true. But what do I know there are certain? There are a lot. There's plenty of that. I don't know. But what I do know is that if Trump had really cared about this as a national security issue that he felt was eggs essential. He wouldn't just turn after that criticism came in. And there was no other external situation that had changed for that reaction talking to Brooklyn nets host and managing editor of on the media from WNYC in New York, and she's with us here, and you can be with us as well. In fact, let me give the phone number.

Coming up next