,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So let’s deconstruct Chuck Todd’s intv, with @SenRickScott, shall we?
First, he starts with a yes/no question. Never good.
Then he allows Sen Scott to avoid answering—in fact the Senator frame his own question: [let’s look at what he says]
Scott moves onto border patrol. 1)
First, he starts with a yes/no question. Never good.
Then he allows Sen Scott to avoid answering—in fact the Senator frame his own question: [let’s look at what he says]
Scott moves onto border patrol. 1)
Chuck happily goes along. Pointing out that Sen Scott is harsher on Cummings than the President.
Scott says he stands up when he disagrees: Chuck doesn’t ask for examples.
Doesn’t follow up with: “so since you’re not challenging the President, we can assume you’re ok w it? 2)
Scott says he stands up when he disagrees: Chuck doesn’t ask for examples.
Doesn’t follow up with: “so since you’re not challenging the President, we can assume you’re ok w it? 2)
Chuck turns to a question that generally white reporters ask—sorry if that makes anyone uncomfortable but that’s my experience. About “healing”.
Moves into “both sides go into their corners”.
Senator Scott goes into border patrol.
This interview had no shape, no arc. 3)
Moves into “both sides go into their corners”.
Senator Scott goes into border patrol.
This interview had no shape, no arc. 3)
Senator Scott was not challenged in any way. No facts held him accountable. In fact, Scott direcred this interview. Well done, Senator!
I’m not a fan if fox but Chris Wallace really understands how to structure an interview. It’s not magic-it’s just a roadmap of the intv. 4)
I’m not a fan if fox but Chris Wallace really understands how to structure an interview. It’s not magic-it’s just a roadmap of the intv. 4)
Others should learn from it.
-Fin-
-Fin-
Oh also. Sen. Scott was a mumbly mess. There was no reason for him to win the battle of this interview. But he did.
