Rolling Stone interview:
Did you share the general shudder when Kellyanne Conway introduced the idea of "alternative facts"? It's just a framing device, an ear-catching phrase, but it's nothing new. The content of what she's wrapping a bow on is something that everyone has been bearing witness to. We've had 18 months of feelings over facts. The only thing that's remotely new about it is the location that it's coming from.
Is interviewing her essentially pointless? In general, it's very dangerous to keep the old campaign architecture around with this presidency, to have an eight-person panel on CNN debating whether or not he said something. "Did he or did he not do this thing we watched him do?" There's actually serious harm in that discussion. And, yeah. I really don't see the point of talking to Kellyanne Conway because her language jujitsu is so strong. You know she can look you in the eyes and tell you the opposite of what you just saw happen, and she will be more confident in her answer than you are in your question.
No comments:
Post a Comment