Hi @NPRinskeep First, thank you for the opportunity to go on at greater length about what I believe is a poorly done story, and an interview where the reporter fails to push back on her subject, and instead allows the VPs proxy to be an unchallenged apologist. 1/
Apologies for the long delay, been stuck in a studio all day, or I would have gotten back sooner.
First, @rachelnpr commits a frequent media error in conflating Black evangelicals and White evangelicals. 2/
First, @rachelnpr commits a frequent media error in conflating Black evangelicals and White evangelicals. 2/
She uses the term ‘evangelicals’ as in “how important keeping the evangelical vote is...” but she means white. Not Black. Small but important point 3/
My biggest complaint with the piece, which I listened to in the shower, then read the online blurb, is how uncritically she quotes Atterholt and allows him to speak unchallenged. For example: 4/
Coming out of the Access Hollywood tape chunk—Atterholt says Pence wasn’t pleased. Martin fails to dig in (push on hypocrisy, ask if Pence compromised his values. ). She moves on to ‘did it make sense it joined the ticket’. 5/
She says he’s loyal—but fails to point out the times when Pence has contradicted the President (ie: not so loyal).
I’m quoting Marting here:”this is the calling, this is the work”
While never digging into the ‘work’—she absolves Pence of any culpability 7/
I’m quoting Marting here:”this is the calling, this is the work”
While never digging into the ‘work’—she absolves Pence of any culpability 7/
... for policies that run counter to Pence’s own beliefs—which ahe spent the first 3/4ths of the story laying out.
She claims—without facts to back up—about ‘godly infuence and counsel’ on the President. Is thst right? Specifically, where? 8/
She claims—without facts to back up—about ‘godly infuence and counsel’ on the President. Is thst right? Specifically, where? 8/
Ultimately—as I said in my one annoyed tweet, she reports this story poorly. The overt hypocrisy of the VPs position could have made this story a fascinating conundrum. Instead—it reads like a classic puff piece. With nothing challenging the premise the VPs CoS puts forward. 9/
He’s Godly, aw shucks, and he forgives it all, darn it, and I’m not going to press on the overt conflicts between the vp’s beliefs and President’s policy.
That’s a fail.
Thank you for pushing me to respond more fully and with more details, altho I think others did 10/
That’s a fail.
Thank you for pushing me to respond more fully and with more details, altho I think others did 10/
Again—apologies for the long delay and I hope everyone has a great night. 11 and fin/
Oh—to answer your question. Do I dislike the reporting—or the subject? That’s amusing—as if I cannot distinguish between the two. A really strong piece on the moral quandry of a very religious man who is vp to a person who is immoral, a liar and a bigot would have been amazing.
