TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2023
...that it will be challenged on cable: Friend, do you have a chance to be a cable news guest?
If so, understand this:
As long as you stick to preferred Storyline, nothing you say will make so little sense that it will ever be questioned or challenged.
Below, we'll offer an example from last evening's Last Word. First, though, another rare event:
Yesterday afternoon, an elementary point of fact was reported on Deadline: White House! This basic fact was reported by legal analyst Katie Phang.
Phang is a personal friend of E. Jean Carroll, but so what? The channel is still using her as a commentator concerning the Carroll lawsuit and trial.
(Full disclosure: For all we know, Phang may be personal friends with "Robby" Kaplan too!)
Yesterday, Phang may have won the all-time Overheated Commentary Award in support of the lawsuit brought by her personal friend. But along the way, she actually explained a very basic factual point.
PHANG (5/8/23): This has to be a unanimous verdict. It has to be unanimous.
Normally, in a New York State civil trial, it would be—I know this is going to sound bizarre—five-sixths of the jury would have to come back on the same verdict. But in this instance, we're in federal court, and in this particular instance, in this case, it has to be unanimous.
We inquired about this extremely basic factual question last week. Even though this is a civil trial, Phang says the decision by the nine-member jury will have to be unanimous.
We'd never seen anyone report this fact one way or another. It rarely occurs to the modern journalist to present any actual facts. Especially on cable news, it's point of view all the way down.
Yesterday, Phang's overheated defense of her friend reached world-class levels. But along the way, she managed to report and explain a basic point of fact.
Now, let's return to last evening's Last Word, where Lawrence consulted with former federal prosecutor Faith Gay.
Asked to comment on yesterday's closing statements by the attorneys, Gay offered this at one point:
MAY (5/8/23): Mr. Tacopina, for Trump, I think got way out over his skis, because he said explicitly, in a sort of a breathtaking manner, that E. Jean Carroll was better off, was better off for her violent encounter with Trump.
He said her life was sexier, more fun, more high publicity, she was hoping for money, and I think there's going to be at least one or two women on that jury, Lawrence, who will find that argument very offensive.
As everyone knows, Tacopina has an impossible client and a very difficult case. That said, did he really say, "in a sort of breathtaking manner," that Carroll "was better off for her violent encounter with Trump?"
We don't know what Tacopina did say. But we find it hard to believe that he actually said that.
As everyone knows, Tacopina's position is that no such violent encounter ever occurred. For that reason, it's hard to believe that he said that Carroll is better off because of the violent encounter.
Lawrence didn't bat an eye, or seek clarification, when Gay offered that analysis. His guest was saying that Tacopina screwed up, and that is preferred Storyline.
It was "close enough for cable news work!" Remember this if you go on cable:
As long as you stick to preferred Storyline, pretty much everything is!