The media has been at the forefront of the presidential election. They pass them off as the enemy more often than actual harmful entities. It’s hard to say whether they are justified or not, some certainly think so more than others. But can a media outlet make things easier for a guest solely on which way the lean?
There is no need to remind you some networks lean one way or another. It’s in their best interest to have parties from both sides of the isle on their programs. When someone of the same side is on it’s more of a buddy-buddy sit down. Whereas when it’s someone behind enemy lines, it’s all an attempt to tear them down.
Here is Donald Trump with Hugh Hewitt, Hewitt gives Trump multiple life boats and walks him through what he should be saying. Trump doing what he does best, ignoring the life boat and continuing his literal stance. Hugh Hewitt leans to the right, if he were left leaning would he do the same?
That’s pretty much what happened to the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson on MSNBC this week. Quickly being asked about Aleppo and what he’d do about it. You probably already know Mr. Johnson’s response. The camera goes to a wide angle to show all four people on the show smugly staring Gary Johnson down. Arms crossed as if they were interrogating him.
There are countless other people things like that have happened to on countless networks. So, should this kind of thing wreck a candidates run? Or even a smaller level politician? Should networks coach up their talking points to all guests regardless of which way they lean? On the other hand, you can argue that a presidential candidate should be able to think quickly on their feet. That’s what makes them a great leader and all around presidential. What do you think?