As satisfying as it may be to see Katy Tur dress down Erick Son of Erick on television, I'm wondering what the value is of inviting Erick Son of Erick on your TV show could possibly be. talkingpointsmemo.com/news/tur-erick…
I think inviting people like Erick Erickson on to discuss the meta story of Trump's reaction to the attempted assassination of Democratic officials and supporters only serves to keep the story on Trump's turf: Everything's a show, nothing has meaning.
This has obviously been a longstanding problem of cable news and isn't unique to Trump, but Trump instinctually understands how to command that space and he's better at it than "cable news" because he has zero scruples and will do anything for ratings and attention.
Adding to the spectacle - by inviting people like Erick Erickson on - reinforces Trump's narrative of news, it's a contest for attention and audience, rather than about fact finding and informing people. What information or import could Erick Erickson possibly have? Zero.
Erick Erickson has no expertise about terrorism. He is not an honest broker of information about whatever it is he does know. The only possible outcome of having him on is him being exposed by Katy Tur as a hack, but this is a known known. We don't need Katy Tur to reveal this.
Unless CNN and MSNBC figure out how to focus on actual news, they will keep getting played by Trump. CNN should be breaking a story like the one on Trump's finances every week, but they barely even do that kind of investigating.
I know I'm making a category error calling CNN and MSNBC news organizations. They're political entertainment channels, more akin to ESPN than anything else. But they're all we have, and they need to do better.
I understand the broadcasting rationale for having Erick Erickson on and there's some visceral pleasure in watching a much smarter person dress him down, but that broadcasting decision does nothing to illuminate the issues or help the audience or hold the powerful accountable
