Fox’s Powers: Paul ‘Wise Not to Pull’ Anything with Megyn Kelly

orenbus

orenbus

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
5,042
Fox’s Powers: Paul ‘Wise Not to Pull’ Anything with Megyn Kelly



The verdict is still out as to whether Rand Paul’s (R-KY) temper with reporters is gendered or not, but Outnumbered host Kirsten Powers said it was a good call not getting testy with host Megyn Kelly last night.

“It doesn’t seem like it had anything to do with women, but I don’t think he came off very well,” Powers said. “Neither did anything from the ordinary. Megyn was being tougher on him and he was wise not to pull it on Megyn.”

Paul got “testy” with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie in an interview yesterday morning, believing she had mischaracterized him as switching positions on numerous foreign policy issues. In the context of a previous incident in which he had shushed CNBC anchor Kelly Evans, the story of the day became Paul’s thin-skinned, which Kelly questioned him about Wednesday night.

RELATED: Huckabee Swipes at Paul’s Testy Interview: ‘This Is the Big Leagues’

“Savannah was asking fair questions,” Kelly added. “And the truth is he was right. He had flip-flopped.”

NBC anchors Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell defended Guthrie yesterday, while Fox News employees circled wagons around Kelly today. On the bright side, Paul has Rush Limbaugh in his corner, so that’s going well.
Click to expand...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-powers-paul-wise-not-to-pull-anything-with-megyn-kelly/
 
I have a novel idea. Next time, Megyn wants an interview, go send in Kelly to bruise her up. This way there will be no manufactured controversy.
 
Last edited:
Andrea: ".....and it will be problematic." Bullshit. He's got over a year and a half to go. This will learned from and long forgotten.
 
"The worst thing you can do is shush a woman." Actually, I can think of many worse things Andrea.
 
Rand would do well to allow himself to be interviewed by respectful, professional, and geo-politically astute, competent journalists. If he continues to allow himself to be guided by these news entertainment platforms and the faces that reside within them, he'll go down with them. Those so called "journalists" aren't journalists at all in my view. And, I'm sorry, but these people don't sound very worldly to me either. I feel like I'm watching a reality tv show with this bunch here in the op.

Here is how dialogue progresses when respectful, intelligent, interviews are performed by competent adults. Learn...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ssion-4-8-15&p=5836312&viewfull=1#post5836312
 
Last edited:
Deborah K said:
Andrea: ".....and it will be problematic." Bullshit. He's got over a year and a half to go. This will learned from and long forgotten.
Click to expand...

bingo!...thats why its good to start earlier. get the few screw ups out of the way and no one will remember them.
 
What Rand did was to get these Fox journalists to discredit/embarrass themselves. The overwhelming message that viewers get from watching these segments is that Fox is out to get him.
 
"The worst thing you can do is shush a woman."
Click to expand...

Off switch.......:cool:

905424-800.jpg
 
So my main take aways from this include the notice of how the media immediately circled the wagons in defense of one of their own, the GOP is very afraid of Rand Paul's influence, and that all the hoopla in that other thread of how big a political genius is Rand Paul was, as I suspected, premature at best.

These interviewers are typically mannerless boors when they decide to go after someone, transparently cloaking their despicable behaviors in the guise of "asking the hard questions." The same people strap on their kneepads and slurp dedicatedly away on people such as Bammy, when it likewise pleases their masters. The whole thought of what the mainstream network media is leaves me in a state of queasiness.

Right as he may be to call these cretins out, in normative principle, he pooches himself in practical fact because the average American is both and intellectually and morally bereft douchebag, ever too lazy to think for himself and therefore more than happy to accept the simplistic and leading conclusions vomited into his lap by those on the tube. Those are the idiots from whom he courts the vote. Therefore, it is imperative he put his thing back behind the zipper where it belongs and keep it there. Always smiling and pleasant, when accused of altering his position, he should have said something like, "Well yes, I have altered my stand as the truer picture of Iran has emerged in time. One can only go by the best information available at any given instant. As more information became available to me, I had no real choice but to alter my views. As a senator, I cannot afford the luxury of presuming too much, as some have indulged themselves. This is serious business with people's lives hanging in the balances of wartime events, not to mention the countless billions of taxpayer dollars being spent. I take my oath seriously, and in so doing I am obliged to be as scientific about my views and actions as possible, which means not jumping guns and being willing to admit when I have had to alter my positions on the issues."

Responses such as this give the interviewer precious few places to go. Becoming goatish gives them precisely what they want, which in this case is any toehold with which to climb all over him. Rand Paul is the Devil in the flesh to these people. He represents this new awakening of the youth and the old guard is obviously seeking to crush it by any means available, the least risky and expensive way being through this process of interviews. Rand Paul gave them what they wanted and they will make hay with it - likely lots of it because that is what they do. These people are grand experts at making mountains from single grains. Because the "thin-skin" meme has been established, keep your eyes peeled for continuing references to it. If this be the only crumb Rand Paul ever gives them, they will ride that bitch to the bitter end, long after it is dust. They are already pumping out the implications in their attempt to fork off as many unflattering ideas as possible, and they are effective at this. That is why Paul needs to get his shit together and cut the crap with thinking he can go to loggerheads with the media in the way he attempted. He will lose. But there are other approaches that leave the talking heads with their dicks in the dirt, which is where he wants to put them and make sure they are incapable of getting back up.

Much as I found John Lennon a generally distasteful man, he was nevertheless intelligent and on the money when he remarked about not playing the game by Theire rules because Theye wrote the book and on that basis you can never win. Therefore, you have to play by your own just as Rand Paul did with the abortion question - he turned it right back at them, which was sound strategy, but not "genius" as some here have asserted. Don't put that man on a pedestal - even his father doesn't merit that, and my respect for him outweighs that for the son. Those are the sorts of error that have contributed greatly to our currently deplorable political circumstance.

Rand Paul has a decent shot at this, but if he insists on taking the bait that he has to know is out there with his name on it, he will be out in no time flat.
 
AuH20 said:
I have a novel idea. Next time, Megyn wants an interview, go send in Kelly to bruise her up. This way there will be no manufactured controversy.
Click to expand...

I wonder about this interview thing... are there no interviewers out there from which one may pick and choose?

Seriously now, if the networks want an interview, I wonder whether they want it enough to allow the interviewee to choose who shall be asking the questions. Or is this a precedent no network would ever want to set?

I know this is fantasy island material here, but if the population of those to be interviewed stood together and demanded they choose the interviewer, the networks would be forced to decide either to put an end to interviews, at least for the foreseeable future, or give in. In principle, this stranglehold the media have on... well, the media, could be altered to better serve the "public good" that broadcasting is supposed to fulfill.

At the very least, I would show up to every interview with my own 3-camera team to record the event as well. Rand Paul could pioneer this and he can afford it, the point being that there would then be an "independent" alternate witness to the events in question such that when the editor's hand strays into painting misleading pictures through his adept, if corrupted, misuse of cutting, the other party can and perhaps as matters of standard procedure should post the uncut versions to the internet for all to see. Hey... if you've got nothing to hide... ;)

These media giants have proven their power and the utter absence of any moral compass, so to speak. Yet we tolerate this, throwing up our hands and saying that there is nothing to be done because they own the means of production. This thinking shows to me a grand failure to think creatively. Consider the 3-camera idea. You show up with the team, what are they going to say, "no, you cannot record your own interview"? Fine, then you leave at their behest. If they then publicly proclaim that you declined at the last moment, you haul their asses into court for making false statements about you. The truth will come out and if enough people of interview-interest would do such things, guess what: the networks would be forced to change their tactics. But things like this take work and most people, their big talk notwithstanding, don't want to do that... heaven forbid.

Hell, as an interviewee, take in a micro-cam and record it. Will the network people demand to strip-search you prior? How about taking a friend with such a device to be present. Call them your "legal adviser" or "doctor" or whatever you want to justify their off-camera presence as they record the interview, uncut. Two can play the media game these days, don't you know, and that is how these things should be played. How about interviewing at a LOCATION of your choice, rather than media studios? "Sure, I can fit you in next Friday at three... my office. No, I'm afraid not... my schedule is far too full to do it at your studios. I am, as you know, campaigning for president." Turn the tables on them. Offer them what they say they want, but under modified conditions.

ETA: Imagine that first network team showing up to your offices - the looks on their kissers when as they walk in the door, that 3-camera team is there, rolling in greet. "Welcome! Welcome! Come on in folks... we're all ready for you. Please, set yourselves up and we can get started right away! It is so good of you to have afforded me this opportunity to be interviewed by you, of all people. I'm so honored, you have no idea..." Imagine what that would do to the invading team - spotlighted like deer. If they continue, you get your uncut version by which to keep them honest... in theory :) If they get all bunchy in their undies, it's all on camera for the world to see their media heroes hemming, hawing, and possibly running for the hills. At the very least, an unflattering picture of them as people emerges and image is everything to these bastards and the networks who own them. Seriously - imagine following them around with cameras all day long and posting every juicy peccadillo to the internet. Fire may by all means be fought with copious waters. :)

Honest to God, I cannot believe that media have gotten away with this nonsense going on 80 years without serious challenge. And with the internet being what it is, there really is no excuse anymore. I also cannot believe that someone such as myself is the only person seeing these avenues of leverage, and that is what this game boils down to: pure leverage to constrain as tightly as possible those in whose interest it may be to stray from the truth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top