What difference does it make?
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 ...
Cowley...LOL!
...depends...
ROTFLMAO!
OMG it's like the twilight zone!! It's like they totally expect that ANY journalist will go full tilt attack on Trump while Clinton gets a pass and all the time in the world to bs her way through questions with non-specific politispeak answers.
The ONLY thing really funny about it is that they are MAD because as biased and unfair as Lauer was Trump was too deft for him to lay a hand on.
“Trump falsely claimed that he was opposed to the Iraq war when it started.”
Was Trump an elected official who voted on the Iraq invasion in 2002? If not then he can make any claim he wants. Clinton on the other hand is on record as supporting the Iraq invasion.
Not firmly in-the-tank for Hillary, huh?
Spot on.
So few who are undecided watched this joke of a forum anyway. Trump will continue to climb, Hillary peaked last month.
What difference does it make?
I am pretty sure trump was against invading but once we were there he knew we had to win and we had to be carful about are exit.
I only saw a few excerpts on FNC last night, and heard a few on radio this morning. Seems as if Her Royal Thighness got into a new twist in her lying about the classified e-mails on the private server, now getting into "headers." Anyone who can't see what a national security risk this moral sleazebag would be as president has either a substandard IQ or a substandard moral consciousness.
There is a larger subtext here. Hillary’s allies are sending NBC a message that they had better not allow a level playing field at the first debate, which one of Lauer’s colleagues will moderate.
Different background, Trump never knew he would run for President while Clinton was preparing for years, decades...
I believe Matt Lauer’s the first journalists to ask Hillary two tough questions in a row. That’s impressive.
Can someone please brief me on this chatter (mentioned by Rush Limbaugh on his show today) about HRC possibly wearing an earpiece during the event yesterday? If so, what would be the purpose of it?
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if Donald Trump opposed the war or not when he said he did or a year later. HE WAS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. What is so hard to understand?
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.