I never thought I’d say this: Sarah Palin is right. “What would you do, if elected president, about Aleppo,” can only be described as Gotcha Journalism.
The question is particularly egregious in a conversation like the one between Gary Johnson and Mike Barnicle on MSNBC. The two were talking about domestic politics, the role of a third party in U.S. presidential elections, the “Ralph Nader effect”, and specific Democratic and Republican platform ideas when Barnicle pivoted without transition: “What would you do, if elected president, about Aleppo?”
A real journalist, not some hack seeking a sound-bite to sink the chances of an underdog candidate, would have handled it differently.
“Thank you. Moving to international matters, let’s turn to Syria.”
Even simply, “Let’s take a look at the crisis in Syria, and the refugee situation in the city of Aleppo” would do the trick.
Instead Barnicle introduces a conflict known more broadly as “The conflict in Syria” as a non-sequitur, using the name of a city that might easily pass for another bad government acronym related to a domestic program. What would you do about Aleppo?
“What would you do about Aleppo?” isn’t even a real question, just like Mike Barnicle, apparently, isn’t a real journalist.
4 thoughts on “What Would You Do About Bad Journalism?”
I agree with you. I think Johnson’s politics suck, but it’s evident he just had a brainfart when confronted by an out-of-context question. The whole matter has been blown up out of all proportion.
he’s a lousy politician. the obvious answer to Barnicle was: Would you please repeat your question in the context of our conversation? But he’s inexperienced and unfit. if a journalist can trip you up so badly, what will Mr. Putin do?
Journalism? It doesn’t exist any longer in this country. We have gone back to the days of unapologetic “yellow journalism ” where each outlet was news bought and paid for by one party or another.
LikeLiked by 1 person