Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Saralynn Finn's avatar

This graph is gold: "Because upon closer listening, unless you’ve truly been living under a very large, and truly sheltering flat rock – in which case, could we come join you, just for a bit? we’ll bring snacks and help with the laundry – it’s really hard to buy a lot of things that come out of the conversation."

Thank you for saying this so plainly because the watch was dystopian and propaganda levels of difficult to create coherence around.

Ralph Rosenberg's avatar

thanks for the recap and for taking the time to review the comments. I agree Bartlett's curiosity is a genuine asset — until it isn't. Letting Ivanka claim credit for child tax credits and anti-trafficking work, without noting her father has cut funding for many children's programs, including domestic abuse programs and international trafficking prosecutions, isn't open-mindedness. It's a free promo. Journalists don't have to know everything. But they do have to ask something.

The UNASB challenge — what would you come away with if you knew nothing about her? — is exactly the right question, and this piece answers it honestly. Ivanka is formidable.

Your piece applauds Bartlett for "letting the subject talk" as a model for the left. Fair point. Kind of a problem today with MSM and all the Trump lies. Problem for Bartless is that listening without accountability isn't curiosity — it's complicity dressed up as open-mindedness. When Bartlett lets the trafficking or child care claims, let alone cuts to Medicaid to tens of millions of kids, go unchallenged, he's not modeling engagement. (I realize MSM has yet to come up with a model, either)

The comments noticed what Bartlett didn't. That's the tell. Good interviewers don't leave the accountability work to the comment section.

No posts

Ready for more?