usmbguest5318
Gold Member
The video below contains excerpts from Don Lemon's show on CNN. The first segment is the one that I've watched and that is why the clip is posted here.
Lemon's show, CNN Tonight, is not a "hard" news show; it is a news commentary, aka editorial, show, much like Firing Line (a show I dearly miss) or McLaughlin Group was. It's purpose is to have panels of commentators ("columnists") discuss things in a political context. Lemon doesn't even pretend that his show is a news show. The show's format is Lemon presents a clip or prefaces a topic and then queries the commentators for various specific aspects of their thoughts about it.
The specific topics seen in the clip are irrelevant to this thread. This thread isn't about them, it's about the fact that people, pundits really, who deliberately put themselves into a situation where they know part of "the deal" is to respond to questions, won't simply answer the question they are asked. They went on the show and knew damn well the show's format is one of Q&A driven discussion, not extemporaneous speech.
Now I was looking for a video example of what I'm talking about when I saw the first segment of the video below, I knew it (I haven't watched the rest of the clip) was what I was looking for. Why? Well, because the woman gets asked a "softball" opening question, one that's supremely easy to answer, assuming one has given the matter any thought at all, which seeing as all the discussion topics on that show are current events, one must have. And what is her response?
"Well, I don't think we should start there." WTH? It's not her place to establish where the discussion starts. She's not the host! Where a conversation starts is the host's prerogative. She was asked a damn question about her opinion -- the whole reason she's paid to be on the show is to share her opinion (AFAIK, she's not been on the show again). If she's not going to so much as share her opinion on a topic, why was she even there?
That is a huge problem with political discourse these days. People have "talking points" rather than discursive sincerity. I don't tune in to hear echoed the same points over and over. If I watch an editorial show or segment, it's to see if someone has a perspective to offer that I haven't considered or conceived. "Talking points" are easy to come by; the politicians themselves deliver them during their interviews on actual news shows as reliably as the milkman brought dairy goods.
Lemon's show, CNN Tonight, is not a "hard" news show; it is a news commentary, aka editorial, show, much like Firing Line (a show I dearly miss) or McLaughlin Group was. It's purpose is to have panels of commentators ("columnists") discuss things in a political context. Lemon doesn't even pretend that his show is a news show. The show's format is Lemon presents a clip or prefaces a topic and then queries the commentators for various specific aspects of their thoughts about it.
The specific topics seen in the clip are irrelevant to this thread. This thread isn't about them, it's about the fact that people, pundits really, who deliberately put themselves into a situation where they know part of "the deal" is to respond to questions, won't simply answer the question they are asked. They went on the show and knew damn well the show's format is one of Q&A driven discussion, not extemporaneous speech.
Now I was looking for a video example of what I'm talking about when I saw the first segment of the video below, I knew it (I haven't watched the rest of the clip) was what I was looking for. Why? Well, because the woman gets asked a "softball" opening question, one that's supremely easy to answer, assuming one has given the matter any thought at all, which seeing as all the discussion topics on that show are current events, one must have. And what is her response?
"Well, I don't think we should start there." WTH? It's not her place to establish where the discussion starts. She's not the host! Where a conversation starts is the host's prerogative. She was asked a damn question about her opinion -- the whole reason she's paid to be on the show is to share her opinion (AFAIK, she's not been on the show again). If she's not going to so much as share her opinion on a topic, why was she even there?
That is a huge problem with political discourse these days. People have "talking points" rather than discursive sincerity. I don't tune in to hear echoed the same points over and over. If I watch an editorial show or segment, it's to see if someone has a perspective to offer that I haven't considered or conceived. "Talking points" are easy to come by; the politicians themselves deliver them during their interviews on actual news shows as reliably as the milkman brought dairy goods.