By John Q. Hosedrinker 
John Oliver critiques ABC’s Terry Moran for abandoning a line of questioning regarding President Trump’s claim that a deported man had an MS-13 tattoo. Oliver argues that Moran should have pressed Trump to substantiate his false claim, even if it meant delaying other questions. He suggests forcing Trump to repeatedly describe the supposedly real tattoo, highlighting its implausible features to expose the falsehood. This approach, Oliver contends, is crucial when Trump uses demonstrably false information to promote harmful narratives.
Read the original article here
John Oliver’s suggestion for a new approach to interviewing Donald Trump centers on refusing to let him evade difficult questions or blatant falsehoods. He proposes a more confrontational style, pushing back against Trump’s tendency to deflect and change the subject.
Instead of politely moving on from obviously false statements, Oliver advocates for interviewers to directly challenge Trump’s assertions. This includes pressing him on demonstrably incorrect claims, like the authenticity of a poorly photoshopped image depicting MS-13 tattoos.
Oliver suggests a pointed line of questioning, forcing Trump to repeatedly affirm his belief in the fabricated image’s veracity, highlighting the absurdity of his claims. He emphasizes the importance of focusing on the details, such as the oddly clear and dark “M” in the image, and the unrealistic alignment of the numbers on the purported tattoo.
The core of Oliver’s suggestion is to stop treating Trump with kid gloves. The current approach, which often avoids direct confrontation to maintain access, allows Trump to spread misinformation and avoid accountability.
Oliver’s proposed method directly addresses the common critique of Trump interviews: the lack of follow-up questions and the failure to challenge incoherent or blatantly false statements. He argues that interviewers should not accept vague or nonsensical answers as legitimate responses.
The suggested approach isn’t just about fact-checking; it’s about exposing the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in Trump’s statements. By relentlessly pursuing the truth, even in the face of Trump’s anger or refusal to cooperate, interviewers could more effectively expose his flaws in reasoning and truthfulness.
A significant aspect of Oliver’s proposed strategy is the deliberate refusal to allow Trump to control the narrative. By insisting on answers to difficult questions and refusing to move on until satisfactory responses are provided, interviewers could shift the power dynamic.
This strategy isn’t about winning a debate or changing Trump’s mind; it’s about documenting his falsehoods for the public record. The goal is to expose the incoherence of his arguments and highlight his disregard for truth.
This approach necessitates a significant shift in the established interview protocols. Traditional journalistic norms often prioritize maintaining access over confrontation. However, Oliver suggests that this approach has enabled Trump to manipulate the media and spread misinformation with impunity.
The effectiveness of Oliver’s suggestion depends on the interviewer’s willingness to risk losing access to Trump. The fear of losing White House credentials or facing repercussions from superiors often prevents interviewers from asking tough questions.
However, Oliver argues that the potential benefits – exposing Trump’s dishonesty and holding him accountable for his statements – outweigh the risks. The public’s right to accurate information should supersede concerns about maintaining access to a potentially deceptive and manipulative source.
Oliver’s critique extends beyond individual interviewers; he implicitly criticizes the broader media landscape for its failure to effectively challenge Trump’s pronouncements. The media’s reluctance to engage in rigorous questioning has allowed him to perpetuate his false narratives.
While some argue that a more confrontational approach might be unproductive or even counterproductive, Oliver’s suggestion highlights the need for a more assertive journalistic approach when dealing with someone known for dishonesty and manipulation. His proposal prompts a critical reflection on the role of the interviewer in ensuring truth and accountability.
The ultimate goal isn’t necessarily to convert Trump’s supporters, but to provide the public with a clear record of his inaccuracies and avoid legitimizing his false claims through unchallenged repetition. The suggested approach is thus not about engaging in debate, but rather about documenting and exposing falsehoods.
Therefore, John Oliver’s suggestion is not merely a novel interviewing technique, but a call for a fundamental shift in how the media interacts with and covers figures known for spreading misinformation. It represents a plea for more assertive and uncompromising journalism, prioritizing truth and accountability over access and politeness.