I came across this interview today on CNN with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on Reliable Sources hosted by Brian Stelter and thought it useful to share. The reason is simply; I totally/utterly agree with the guest’s views on Trump and the way in which he articulates them, so that’s good enough to post on my site 🙂 No truly it is quite an interesting interview and though it is true I do agree with most of the guests comments, some I do NOT agree. But hold on, this wasn’t just about Trump but also about the role of the media and the way it chooses to report on him.
First let me say that the one statement by Col. Peters that really rang loud and continues to echo in my head from this entire interview is this; “We need people who speak what they believe and NOT based on who it offends”, how true and here I was thinking we’ve already past that goal post in western Democracies. That’s actually the technical difference – in my view anyway – between a politician and a political hack. Political hacks who choose to follow their leader like a herd of cattle have plenty of room in other non-Democratic states, so they can pack-up, select the country of choice – preferably using map and a toothpick (though not obligatory), then they can move right along. They may then discover – once they’ve lived it – how fascinating this transition proves to be.
As for the media; it was quite interesting to see Brian Stelter’s efforts twice to turn the conversation into a bashing match on Fox News – you need NOT look further than the title at the bottom of screen to get a feel for the focus point – however Col. Peters would have non of that, preferring to stay focused on the real issues with this Presidency, not even just about Trump himself.
I also like the part when talking about reaching out to Trump support base rather than demonising/insulting them or their intelligence. I’ve watched a few interviews on CNN with Trump “lackey’s” and questions by the host have normally been what I would characterise as “closed questions”; in other words something along the lines of “how can you not agree with X” rather than encouraging a larger debate on values/principles, viability of policies and things like promoting the now endangered concept of compromise. So what I am seeing is a media that is fuelling division and focusing on narrow narratives rather than engage/challenge away from political bias – no wonder many are deciding to stick to their own channels that fit their worldview. So if there is Fox on the right, we also have the anti-Fox on the left at a time when we desperately need an objective media that seeks facts and does not engage in politics but rather helps objectively analyse/challenge policy/politicians to reach bare facts unstained by any form of bias. It may not be an easy balance to accomplish but it most certainly is the right balance that needs to be achieved cause we really really need the media to be part of the solution not merely compounding our problems.
Anyway, I hope you agree that it is an interview worth your time.