Posted on 09/08/2016 10:37:13 AM PDT by tcrlaf
NBC News knows the "Commander-in-Chief Forum" was not Matt Lauer's finest hour.
One executive, speaking anonymously, was blunt about it: "Disaster."
The morning after Lauer's back-to-back interviews of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, several high ranking sources at the network said they hear the criticism and agree with at least some of it.
Lauer was widely criticized for failing to fact-check or follow up when Trump falsely claimed that he was opposed to the Iraq war when it started. Some viewers thought Lauer held Clinton to a higher standard than Trump. Several people who were sitting in the audience told CNN that they were frustrated too.
The ratings for Wednesday night's forum were strong, according to preliminary data. But the reviews were pitiful. So what went wrong? That's what journalists both inside and outside NBC are asking now. There is no clear answer.
Lack of preparation is one theory.
New York Times TV critic James Poniewozik wrote Thursday that 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."
But Lauer's interviewing skills are second to none. He has hosted thousands of episodes of the "Today" show.
And he had a week to prep for the forum.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
“This could literally COST HIM HIS JOB”
He’ll just be exiled to where all malfunctioning lib newsies go............msnbc.
The Cavuto interview 3 months before the invasion shows Trump was cautious and skeptical of the war but not as clearly against it as he claims today.
A successful take down of Trump would cost us our country, so I'm okay with a celebrity losing his trivial job.
Ten Hail Gaias and a generous contribution to the Clinton Foundation should do it.
Is this the same guy who started in/with MTV, when it came to TV? (the panzy?)
“If you think Candy Cowley was one sided, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.”
Not to mention gwen ifill
I got the idea Matt Lauer began to like Trump in the interview, and knew he was over matched.
Ridiculous article saying he didn’t challenge Trump enough. Their view is that he shouldn’t have stopped arguing until Trump was driven into submission.
Trump DID oppose the Iraq war and he certainly opposed it when Hillary supported it.
And Lauer was actively fighting with Trump and interrupting him to defend Hillary.
Because the lefties have turned people away from even listening to him with their lies and slurs. It's the same way they marginalized Ann Coulter, because if people listened to her, their minds would be changed.
So they call her a "racist", obscentities, liar, etc, sio people won't even listen to her.
They've been doing it to Trump, because when people actually listen to him, they like what he has to say.
It’s pretty revealing. 100% of the article’s criticism against Lauer is that he was too “hard” on Hillary and too easy on Trump. The facts - number of interruptions, etc - state otherwise, as well as the impression detailed on FR that he was constantly looking for (and prepared for) that one perfect “gotcha” on You Know Who. NBC is disappointed because it didn’t happen. That isn’t disastrous, merely incompetent. Lauer’s job is in no danger.
Trump on one occasion said to Howard Stern something along the lines of “Yeah, I guess maybe we had to do it...”
Otherwise Trump articulated an argument against the war, which was a very unpopular position at the time.
The idea that Lauer should have “proven” Trump a liar is ridiculous leftist bias.
The tactic is to always take one thing Trump says out of a long appearance and run around shouting that he lied or did something disqualifying. And then there is reality.
They were counting on Lauer to bring down Trump with the set up question and Trumps Tweet from 3 years ago regarding sexual assaults in the military. They were sure they could work the feminists into a lather a bring down Trump.
Ah, Roger Mudd, for instance? How was Mudd to know that the guy he was interviewing, who was running for the Dem nomination for POTUS, was totally clueless on why he wanted to be POTUS?
I recently referred to the MSM as Pravda to my older sister last week, and she asked me what that was. It was then that I realized so many members of my family are low information voters. They believe whatever they are told by the alphabets. The good news is she was quite receptive to hearing all the dirt on Hillary I know. I still have a ways to go with these siblings, so I hope I’m not out of time.
No mention of fact checking Hillary’s answers? All she did was lie.
That must mean that he's got gravitas. And is smart.
I was surprised Hillary got tough questions and so much about email. I thought they were going hard on the email to get all those questions out of the way before the debate.
Notice that no “journalists” asked her tough questions about her new email lie today.
Ambassador Bolton explained her lie on Breitbart today very well. He said in her government office, she would have had 2 computers. One secure, not hooked up to the internet for classified info and one hooked up to the internet and not used for classified info. She was obviously trying to weasel another lie based on her government office and not her private server at home.
Demonstrably not, it seems.
So much for the value of Brian Stelter at CNN Money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.