this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
26 points (64.8% liked)

News

36270 readers
2593 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The outlet, which describes itself as Pennsylvania’s only African American-owned and operated radio station, also said the White House’s decision to supply questions to Lawful-Sanders prolonged a historical practice of marginalizing and “de-legitimizing Black voices” in US media.

"Lawful-Sanders was one of two battleground state radio hosts who aired an interview with Biden on 4 July and described being given questions by the president’s staff ahead of the conversation."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 71 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Not passing judgement on anyone's behavior, but isn't it typical to be given a list of approved questions when interviewing someone like the president?

[–] wolf_2202@sh.itjust.works 39 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes. I don’t personally understand what the story is here. I’ve never heard of any high-profile politician going into an scheduled interview without a team providing a list of approved questions.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The story is:

The presidents aides called a radio station before an interview with the president to give them a list of questions.

This is bad journalism.

Imagine if Trump gave CNN a list of questions they could ask him on air. Would you watch that interview? Take it seriously?

[–] wolf_2202@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

No, I wouldn’t watch that interview. I, and I’d wager everyone else using the fediverse, am highly skeptical of large media institutions specifically because they engage in questionable journalistic practices like this.

My point is: there is no scandal here. It seems to me that this story is getting signal boosted specifically to discredit the president. The realities of interviews like this are left out of these headlines and it’s very frustrating.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run -5 points 2 years ago

The story is a cover up

[–] dank@lemmy.today 11 points 2 years ago

No. It's fairly common for interviewees to ask for a list of questions beforehand, but according to Boston University journalism professor Christopher Daly "it is not good professional practice to give questions in advance to sources such as public officials." And to let the interviewee actually write the questions for you is egregious journalism malpractice, thus the resignation.

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Not sure but that wouldn't surprise me.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Regardless, the optics at the moment are harmful. I mostly appreciate the job Joe has done, but I'm starting to come around on a Kamala candidacy.

If he resigned from the Presidency now, for personal reasons, that would be nothing but respected by almost all Americans. Kamala would become President, and be running as the incumbent trying to continue his policies and direction into the next term.

She may not poll well at the moment, but that could be worked on.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She may not poll well at the moment, but that could be worked on.

The election is in ~3 months (doesn't seem like it given our 3 year election cycles, but it is). I'm hesitant to add any more chaos to this already chaotic election.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Better to add more "chaos" than to bet the future of the world on an already losing candidate who's only digging the hole deeper every time he reaffirms his commitment to not listen to the people he's supposed to represent.