Last week, I discussed how media organizations shouldn’t waste time on Trump’s toilet tweets–the inanities that a narcissist constantly blurts out. Here’s another good media trick (boldface mine):
Do these interviews truly need to be conducted “live” in the case of guests with a history of disinformation? A mere 20-minute delay would allow network graphics departments to note, in the forms of chyrons and other text, when a guest has claimed something that is brazenly untrue…
This is not the same as attempting to shame politicians into honest behavior; there is no such thing as political shame. Stop expecting it; stop presuming it. There is only advantage or disadvantage. Liars will stop lying in public when the penalties for public lying are consequential enough to outweigh the advantages of broadcasting the lie.
Being publicly and rigorously branded as a source of false information would do that—not because it would impart shame, but because it would weaken the ability of the propagandist to be effective with the large majority of the semi-informed, nonrabidly-partisan public that is the propagandist’s main target.
This wouldn’t be hard to do, especially since they tell the same lies again and again: you could have this canned and ready to go. If it’s really bad, treat what was going to be the interview segment as a debunking segment (‘X said this, here’s why that’s not true’). If done well, it can be just as dramatic and engaging (which often means enraging) as the scheduled interview.