I love this clip. How often have you seen guests come on shows knowing what they are going to be asked about, but when the question comes they pretend to be shocked. Tim Carney learned a lesson today. MSNBC Tamron Hall was not having it and she let him know it.
-
Live Feed
Comments
You love this, do you? I took you for someone who would more value comity more than indignation. I personally think she did the right thing in not permitting him to evade her questions but I think a pro would know how to do that more adroitly and courtly.
I get tired of seeing guests act as if they are offended by the questions when they knew what they would be discussing prior to coming on the show. Most hosts play along with the nonsense she didn’t. It might not have been pretty but it was necessary.
I’ve never heard of one being referred to as an angry white woman. But it common for one to be labeled an angry black woman. This is the risk that she takes in responding to a guest that way. I don’t believe that type of performance does anything to enhance her career. Again, a professional knows how to call a guest out , when necessary, while remaining professional.
He fired the first shot with his adolescent attempt to “expose” what the interviewer’s real intent is: “What you’re doing here is a typical media trick,” Carney charged. “You hype up a story and justify the second-day coverage of the story.”
He fails miserably in his attempt to redirect the issue at hand and take control of the story then fire off pre-masticated talking points to spin it his way.
Good for her. For years up here north of the 49th parallel we had a CBC national radio and TV interview show host name of Barbara Frum (now deceased) who was the toughest and best informed interviewer I have ever known and who established a program style still on the air 41 years later.
At this very moment Barbara is looking down on Tamron Hall and shouting “You go girl!” (Gimme a break – the phrase was still new and in use when Barbara was with us.)
Good for you Tamron. The more there are like you, the less BS will pass as news in the media.
I would be even MORE impressed if Tamron Hall uses a similar tactic when she has a spokesperson from the Left in her sights.
If they try the same trick they deserve the same response. Depending on the political leaning of the interviewer though, if someone they politically side with comes on I don’t they would go this route.
Frankly this guy didn’t have to. He tweeted that he was asked (before coming on the program) to address the issue of whether the media response (to whatever rumours) was appropriate. There are a dozen ways to do that without picking a fight as he did.
If his boss is running for the highest office in the land, he (the Boss) had better get used to attacks both fair and unfair, and he’d better get better front men and women than this.
Just because he agreed to come on the show does not mean he has to agree with the premise of the invite, and he had an obligation to his side to point out if they (MSNBC) are incorrect. Who’s to say he wouldn’t have addressed their comments if she hadn’t cut him off? To simply say “We don’t agree with your premise, so we aren’t going to come on” would be unproductive and lead to MSNBC merely saying “the Romney camp was given a chance to come on and address this, but they declined.”
I agree that someone that they agree with politically wouldn’t get this type of treatment, because they would not ask any hard questions of them. No matter how outrageous the response, they will not hold someone they like to the same standard. I could give examples like when Spike Lee called Trent Lott a “straight up, card-carrying member of the Klan” and the interviewer just chuckled, or, well, that’s good enough for now.