Politics –
Matt Lauer Interview:
Fair, Foul, Or Sexist?
The “Commander-In-Chief Forum” interviews of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump last week by NBC’s Matt Lauer was an excellent idea — until it actually happened. Since then, critics from both sides of the political aisle have accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness, and even sexism in how he handled himself.
Politics
To call the forum “bad” would be an understatement. Even executives at NBC called the performance of Matt Lauer a “disaster.” However, the idea of sexism at play is an interesting and under-considered theory.
The forum was held at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York City last week, and Matt Lauer was given 30 minutes to ask pressing questions of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. However, in what was likely a horrible attempt at fairness, the NBC anchor ended up being overly biased toward Hillary Clinton, while giving Donald Trump free-pass to essentially say and do whatever he wanted.
During Mrs. Clinton’s 30 minutes, Matt Lauer spent nearly half of the time questioning her use of a private email server. He frequently interrupted the Democratic presidential nominee often before she could fully answer the question she was asked. Then, realizing he was running short on time, Lauer raced through a series of serious questions regarding domestic terror and more, failing to give such topics the weight they deserved.
In contrast, Matt Lauer extended virtual Carte Blanche to Donald Trump, frequently allowing the Republican presidential nominee to talk over him, or flat-out refuse to answer certain questions.
At one point in the interview, Trump said, “I was totally against the war in Iraq,” which any knowledgeable person recognizes as false. However, Lauer seemed somewhat perplexed by Trump’s bravado and allowed his claims to go completely unchallenged.
Sexism?
Journalists and political observers were completely caught off guard by Lauer’s lack of preparedness and professionalism.
Lauer seemed “unprepared on specifics of military and foreign policy: “He performed like a soldier sent on a mission without ammunition, beginning with a disorganized offensive, ending in a humiliating retreat,” wrote New York Times critic James Poniewozik.
“How in the hell does Lauer not fact-check Trump lying about Iraq? This is embarrassingly bad,” wrote Tommy Vietor, a former aide to President Obama. Glenn Kessler, the chief fact checker at The Washington Post, took to Twitter with proof of Trump’s lie, saying “@MLauer should have been prepared to do this.”
Political commentator Norman Ornstein also said on Twitter: “Lauer interrupted Clinton’s answers repeatedly to move on. Not once for Trump,” adding, “Tough to be a woman running for president.”
Politics
The seemingly double-standard and potentially sexist treatment from Matt Lauer proceeded yet another example of holding Hillary Clinton to a different standard than Donald Trump.
On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton was forced to apologize for calling “half” of Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.
“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.
.
“If I were to be grossly generalistic, I would say you can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I call the deplorables — the racists, you know, the haters, and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists. So just eliminate them from your thinking, because we’ve always had an annoying prejudicial element within our politics.”
.
Although she may have been slightly off regarding the math, Hillary Clinton was exactly correct to point out how the candidacy of Donald Trump has been a magnet for racists, sexists, homophobes, and xenophobes. However, Mrs. Clinton should have never needed to apologize, particularly considering that Donald Trump has long made general claims about Mexicans (rapists, thieves, unfit to be a judge), African-Americans (living in poverty, no good schools, no jobs), Muslims (all of them should be banned from the U.S.) and more without recourse or any need to apologize.
Being the first African-American nominee of a major political party, Barack Obama was held to a different standard than his Republican and WHITE counterpart. Now, as the first female nominee of a major political party, is Hillary Clinton also being held to a different standard than her Republican and MALE counterpart?
TAKE OUR POLL:
Being the first African-American nominee of a major political party, Barack Obama was held to a different standard than his Republican and WHITE counterpart. Now, as the first female nominee of a major political party, is Hillary Clinton also being held to a different standard than her Republican and MALE counterpart? […..] You're darn right DJ and I find it truly sickening. In fact, I so loathe the American news media industry these days that I barely -and I do mean BARELY – watch even 5 minutes of it anymore. That said. I am absolutely disgusted with the campaign Hillary is running. She came out of the Dems convention with a HUGE bounce which actually was sustained thru most of August. And what did she do to build on her post-convention bounce? She gave One great National Security speech and raised a ton of money. That's it. In other words,… Read more »