Trump berates Peter Alexander

[TheBigA]

Rachel Maddow just said "If it was up to me, and it's not, I would not continue to run these daily briefings live on TV because of all the misinformation in them."

She was specifically speaking about the malaria drug, and the clear difference of opinion between the president and Dr. Fauci. In her opinion, it's cruel to give people false hope that this drug is "effective" when there is no proof as of now, and Dr. Fauci was pretty clear about that.

Now a lot can be said about her credibility on many things, and I'm not offering what she says as unbiased opinion. But just placing it here because it's relevant.

 

[bobjim45]

I'm assuming it's not over the counter, and would require a prescription. So operationally, practically, how does that work? Would your doctor prescribe a drug that hasn't been approved...

There have been reports in NYC that hospitals are already using it to treat patients. Doctors regularly prescribe drugs for off-label use which this one would be. France and other countries used it to treat COR19 and has seen success. It's been is use since the 1960's and has very little side effects. The drug manufacturers cant market this drug as a treatment for COR19 until it has FDA approval.

There is a news value of airing these briefings and the networks are going to continue to air them but I think it's safe to say the president is extremely thin skin and the media also isn't either isn't sending its best reporters (where are the medical and economic reporters at these briefings?) or not asking enough good questions. There is a bunch of experts standing there with to few question asked to them. Those of us in the media have to and can do a better job and obviously government officials shouldn't lash out at reporters.

 

[crainbebo]

I thought the President made some disrespectful comments. Sure, he bashes the media frequently on Twitter. But today was not the day to do that - especially with positive Coronavirus cases going up in droves thanks to test kits.
LEAVE that out of the press conference!
I stand with Peter.

 

[frankberry]

My two-cents worth ... I believe that Peter asked a perfectly good question and the President's rebuff and attack was uncalled for.
I am in the high-risk group for multiple reasons. I'm terrified of this disease, as are others in my situation.

 

[bobjim45]

My two-cents worth ... I believe that Peter asked a perfectly good question and the President's rebuff and attack was uncalled for.
I am in the high-risk group for multiple reasons. I'm terrified of this disease, as are others in my situation.

Like i said before the President remark was uncalled for but this is called question is called a "softball question." its certainly not a good question and it if you watched the briefings this week a variation of this question has been asked in almost all of them.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

There has been so much lying and misrepresentation throughout this situation from the White House that skepticism is warranted and probing questions are valid. Mr. Trump is not a doctor. He does not have a medical background. His braggadocio aside, he does not know more about these things than actual experts.

As both someone in a high risk group and the parent of and related to others similarly situated, hope of a treatment is good. But I will not base that hope on a hunch by someone with no expertise, and a frankly dismal record of being forthright and taking the issue seriously. I expect reporters to ask hard questions. It comes with the job he sought to answer them.

Moreover, the question that provoked the hostile response was as soft as it gets.

 

[TheBigA]

There is a news value of airing these briefings and the networks are going to continue to air them but I think it's safe to say the president is extremely thin skin and the media also isn't either isn't sending its best reporters (where are the medical and economic reporters at these briefings?) or not asking enough good questions.

In order to attend a briefing at the white house, one must be credentialed. That process requires an FBI background check and full security clearance. That takes a few weeks. So media outlets can't just send various beat reporters (medical or economic reporters). As Peter Alexander pointed out later, this was what we'd call a "soft ball" question, not a hard question at all, not a nasty question, not off topic. Notice no one has attempted to ask questions on other subjects, such as Ukraine or Putin.

If this president lashes out in public at reporters, imagine what he's like off camera, with staff or other officials.

 

[Kelly A]

As Peter Alexander pointed out later, this was what we'd call a "soft ball" question, not a hard question at all, not a nasty question, not off topic.

I believe The President labeled it as "nasty" because any response wouldn't fall within with the limited repertoire of comments:

"The best"
"The best ever"
"A fine group of people"
"We'll see"
"We'll see what happens"
"Our response was unprecedented"
"Everybody knows"
"World class"
"Who knows"
"________Is a good friend of mine"

If this president lashes out in public at reporters, imagine what he's like off camera, with staff or other officials.

Some press have witnessed POTUS tearing-into White House staff who disagree or aren't kissing the ring. It isn't pretty. Why any salient human being would want to put themselves through that sort of environment for $150,000 per year, potentially as an "interim" role anyway, completely confounds me.

I believe The President admires North Korea and Russia primarily for their ability to completely control the press. Distension is met with the group or individuals disappearing.

 

[Kemosabe]

Rachel Maddow just said "If it was up to me, and it's not, I would not continue to run these daily briefings live on TV because of all the misinformation in them."

While that may seem reasonable to some, it does little to inform the public. Reporters could follow William Brangham's example from yesterday's PBS NewsHour (video) by correcting erroneous information:

Brangham:

But in what turned into a testy, contentious press conference, the president also said several things that are factually wrong. For example, he cited the wrong symptoms for COVID-19.

Trump:

They're sneezing, they are sniffling, they don't feel good, they have a temperature. There are a lot of different things.

Brangham:

Actual symptoms are fever, but also dry cough and trouble breathing. Sneezing and sniffling are not.

He implied that an unproven anti-malaria drug could prevent infection. There's zero proof of that.

One of his top health officials, Dr. Anthony Fauci, had to correct the record moments later.

Like i said before the President remark was uncalled for but this is called question is called a "softball question." its certainly not a good question and it if you watched the briefings this week a variation of this question has been asked in almost all of them.

Trump could have hit that softball out of the park with a thoughtful, statesmanlike response. Instead, he struck out at reporters.

 

[gr8oldies]

Trump is doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the malaria drug on Twitter today.

While that may seem reasonable to some, it does little to inform the public. Reporters could follow William Brangham's example from yesterday's PBS NewsHour (video) by correcting erroneous information:

Brangham:

Trump:

Brangham:
​

Trump could have hit that softball out of the park with a thoughtful, statesmanlike response. Instead, he struck out at reporters.

 

[semoochie]

My two-cents worth ... I believe that Peter asked a perfectly good question and the President's rebuff and attack was uncalled for.
I am in the high-risk group for multiple reasons. I'm terrified of this disease, as are others in my situation.

I could ask the same question, but in reverse: why do reporters inject partisan politics into questions about the pandemic we are trying to make our way through.

I'd like to be optimistic about alternative treatments for the pandemic, and existing approved medications may be able to reduce the severity of some cases. I find that encouraging and showing that all the alternatives are being explored makes me pleased and hopeful.

Peter Alexander, as I heard it, wanted to dismiss any alternative treatments as sort of pie-in-the-sky promises when, in fact, it is good to know that lots of work is being done. Alexander's question certainly put a pop in that balloon.

This appears to be differing opinions from two separate moderators! Also, isn't this entire discussion against the Radio Discussions rules, in that it only peripherally connects to "radio" and is of a partisan nature, due to the unique nature of the current administration?

 

[TheBigA]

This appears to be differing opinions from two separate moderators! Also, isn't this entire discussion against the Radio Discussions rules, in that it only peripherally connects to "radio" and is of a partisan nature, due to the unique nature of the current administration?

My take, and my approach to this discussion, is to focus on the interaction with the media. To me, this is a media story, not political, because it has nothing to do with politics. He would be this way and say these things regardless of politics.

 

[bobjim45]

In order to attend a briefing at the white house, one must be credentialed. That process requires an FBI background check and full security clearance. That takes a few weeks.

National news organizations like ABC news and the WSJ have many journalist that are credentialed for the white house, a New York Times entertainment reporter obviously would have little need for a WH press credential but its not out of the question for the NYT to have journalist with significant beats to have one. The White House also issue day passes to journalist that aren't credentialed and those dont take weeks to get clearance.

 

[TheBigA]

The White House also issue day passes to journalist that aren't credentialed and those dont take weeks to get clearance.

Those one day passes are for specific things, not regular briefings. These are mainly for regular beat reporters, and Peter is the NBC White House Correspondent. The issue isn't about reporters or questions, although he said he didn't like this particular reporter.

 

[bobjim45]

Those one day passes are for specific things, not regular briefings. These are mainly for regular beat reporters, and Peter is the NBC White House Correspondent. The issue isn't about reporters or questions, although he said he didn't like this particular reporter.

No, its common for the WH to issue day passes to briefings. Journalist that are issued one day passes cant go on air force one, meetings with bureau chiefs and other highly controlled meetings and like i said organization like NBC has several reporters that are credentialed for important topics be it health, business etc.

The issue of questions are very important, there is a need for facts and figures for heath questions and it doesn't seem like there isn't enough cause few of these reporters have the expertise, so we get softball ones from people like Peter.

 

[TheBigA]

The issue of questions are very important, there is a need for facts and figures for heath questions and it doesn't seem like there isn't enough cause few of these reporters have the expertise, so we get softball ones from people like Peter.

He asked a factual question first about the malaria drug, and that ticked off the president, so he followed with the softball. I think the angry response was caused by the earlier factual question, and it was a delayed reaction. Peter could have asked anything at that point, and the answer would have been the same. He snapped at the PBS reporter too.

 

[davideduardo]

This appears to be differing opinions from two separate moderators! Also, isn't this entire discussion against the Radio Discussions rules, in that it only peripherally connects to "radio" and is of a partisan nature, due to the unique nature of the current administration?

This is on the borderline of the rules. We are talking about news media and its interaction with the President. That is narrowly within the acceptable coverage of radio and TV.

As long as this stays as a discussion of actions involving the media, it fits the scope of the board.

In a question that is borderline, the two moderators may differ. In that case, Frank is "Moderator in Chief" and will make the definitive decision. I often spot a questionable post and message Frank for a consultation.

We put a lot of thought into the moderation of the board to enable the widest possible range of viewpoints but we also need to put some control on personally offensive statements and subjects that do not at all involve the radio and TV industries.

 

[landtuna]

Reporters, save a few that are free-lance, are assigned stories.

New reporters often get the morgue and things like that... it is not their choice.

I know how reporting works. My point was that the president lies outright so often and when he isn't doing that he is making asinine filler statements like "we'll see" or touting his administration. He has lost his credibility so badly that there isn't any point talking to him. It must be a very frustrating time for WH reporters. I would much rather spend my breakfast time watching the local news instead of wasting an hour of nothing but hot air coming from Trump.

Doctors can prescribe drugs for off-label use but they are at some liability if the meds should misfire. Technically they cannot be held responsible if they prescribe on-label in the correct measure.

The drug they are testing for COVID-19 treatment now has been in use for many years in it's intended purpose (malaria) but they don't know if it has any positive effect on the virus nor do they know the correct dosage. That is what they are testing now.

 

[Kemosabe]

He asked a factual question first about the malaria drug, and that ticked off the president, so he followed with the softball. I think the angry response was caused by the earlier factual question, and it was a delayed reaction. Peter could have asked anything at that point, and the answer would have been the same. He snapped at the PBS reporter too.

It's worth noting that this was not Trump's first attack on Peter Alexander. The following video shows Trump's heated exchange with CNN's Jim Acosta and NBC's Peter Alexander at a White House press conference on 7 November 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1WkFpbHIpI

 

[Will_H_69_9]

This is on the borderline of the rules. We are talking about news media and its interaction with the President. That is narrowly within the acceptable coverage of radio and TV.

As long as this stays as a discussion of actions involving the media, it fits the scope of the board.

In a question that is borderline, the two moderators may differ. In that case, Frank is "Moderator in Chief" and will make the definitive decision. I often spot a questionable post and message Frank for a consultation.

We put a lot of thought into the moderation of the board to enable the widest possible range of viewpoints but we also need to put some control on personally offensive statements and subjects that do not at all involve the radio and TV industries.

i agree, i just don't think this thread is gonna last longer due to the usual back and forth bickering between Trump Supporters and Trump haters.