Pelosi Says Media Should Do Better Job Selling Dem Agenda

If the press would do that, Pelosi wouldn't have any reason to complain. I think every politician in the world likes it when the press reports in favor of his party.

 

INFORM is a big difference from going out and selling. The reason we have no idea what is in it is because the Dems are in a struggle to decide what will be in it. But the discussions and proposals have been reported and the public is not supporting it. Pelosi was complaining about that lack of support because the press is not SELLING the proposals. She didn't say they weren't reporting she said they weren't SELLING it and complaining about it.

You guys don't get to put words in her mouth or change the meanings of words.

Again

"A reporter asked Pelosi at a Tuesday press briefing if Democrats "need to do a better job at messaging" on their controversial spending package, a crucial part of President Joe Biden's domestic agenda.

"Well, I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you," Pelosi responded."

She didn't say "reporting it"
She didn't say "explaining it"

SELLING it, meaning getting it's approval for her.

 

The bill hasn't been completed yet so how could the news media inform anyone?

 

Yes - but I doubt either would spend much time on the details of the bill.

And again you quote the misleading summary, which ignores that the reporter used the word 'sell' first. Why does it leave it out? Because it makes the story seem worse. Again, don't you hate those tricks when the MSM use them?

 

OK, the features they are wanting to include and she is wanting the media to help get out there.

 

You can all the "context you want"

Here
"Do you think you need to do a better job at messaging, and going forward, how do you sell this?" CBS News' Nikole Killion wondered.


"Well I think you all could do a better job of selling it, to be very frank with you," Pelosi


it doesn't change what was said. Yes the reporter as Pelosi how PELOSI and the Dems were going to sell their plan which then need to do and seem to be failing. Pelosi didn't come back with how SHE and the DEMS were going to sell it she chastised the REPORTERS in the room for not selling it. That she doesn't have to do anything by pass it and then it is THEIR job to sell it. THAT is NOT their job. You are the one attempting the misleading here not me.

 

We know what they are proposing we follow it everyday as they go back and forth the Progressives and Liberals fighting within their party and what the people are hearing we're not buying. The question is how are they going to sell these proposals to the people and it's NOT the job of the Press to do that, they only REPORT those efforts which they are doing aplenty.

 

I'm curious - when Trump said at that first press conference with Putin "I don't see why it would be Russia" in relation to election interference, and then subsequently said he misspoke and meant to say "I don't see why it wouldn't be Russia", did you believe him?

 

Oh they have for years which is why she is complaining now and in fact there ARE many in the MSM already engaged in selling it.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

That was exactly my point, in every single one of my replies to you. Speaker Pelosi was clearly talking about the press not sharing all the information which she had given to them, to educate the public. Your whole case about Pelosi brow beating the press to serve her will, comes down to her use of a single word, in repetition of the one used by the reporter, in her question, which was prefaced on a poll, showing that most had no idea what was in the reconciliation bill.

This emboldened, concluding sentence of your quote, is completely false. Listen to your linked video. The reporter does NOT say that the majority don't support it; she says they have no idea what is in it.

This poll OBVIOUSLY is asking about the proposed $3.5 trillion package, not the final compromise which, as you point out, is impossible to yet know. So you are pretending to be dense (I assume) when you imply that CBS sponsored a poll which asked voters what they knew about a final product which did not yet exist, and so couldn't possibly be known, by anyone. If you are going to hold onto this ludicrous argument, I've got better things to do than partake in your farce.

 

In post 8 I suggested it might have been a kind of misspeaking on Pelosi’s part and explained exactly how. You are adamant it wasn’t. I’m curious if you’re consistent and insist Trump meant what he said in the press conference, or if you cut him some slack. So, did you believe him when he said he meant the opposite of what he said in the press conference?

 

Has she said she misspoke? Has she issued a correction?

 

Are you going to deflect or are you going to answer the question?

 

Inform /= sell

And she was quite clear in throwing it back on them. The Press has given them AMPLE opportunities to explain their programs and proposals, printed their comments and broadcast their MESSENGING and HAVE been doing so. There has been no lack of the Press reporting her weekly press conferences, her and other Dem appearances, their interviews, their speeches. And it ain't working for them and why the reporter asked her the question about THEIR messenging. She was asked how SHE was going to SELL it to the people and gave a very BAD answer one based on the support from the Press she has come to expect, a support she and the Dems should not be getting from a Congressional press corp, it "selling" their programs for them.

 

The msm and the dem party are the same entity at this point. Yet they still can’t get it together. Dems genuinely are terrible at leading.

 

I'm not the one deflecting you are the one defecting trying to bring in something you claim Trump did this is about what Pelosi did.

Has she said she misspoke? Has she retracted what she said? If not you are making a specious point.

 

I explained how it is directly relevant- checking whether you hold dems and repubs to the same standards. This is the point at which I question a poster’s good faith- when presented with an awkward question you keep trying to avoid it. Even if you think it’s irrelevant, why not humour me and answer it?

 

This isn't about me, it's about Pelosi and what she said, do try to focus.

 

I get it. If you say you cut trump some slack, you have to explain why you’re not so generous with Pelosi. On the other hand, if you apply the same standard to what trump said as you do with Pelosi, it makes Trump look bad. There’s no point discussing with someone who can’t own up to the weaknesses in their own position. Maybe you genuinely don’t understand what I’m getting at? It can be summed up in this question- are you a hypocrite? Either way, there’s clearly no point in prolonging this.

 

Without everything available yet the people won't get all the facts surrounding the bill or maybe Pelosi thinks just giving them the good stuff is good enough? You have to vote for it before you can read it.

 

I said nothing about Trump so don't put words in my mouth, this is about Pelosi and what she said about the Press.

Has she retracted it? Has she said she misspoke as it seems you are trying to assert?

And you insist on trying to make this about me you can well bet there is no point in going on, debate the issue not the person. You might want to take a glance and the forum posting rules since you are a newbie here.

 

Your contention, based on the poll that is cited in the video, in your own OP, is demonstrably false. To prove your assertion, if it were true, you should be able to cite a slew of articles all detailing all the parts of the $3.5 trillion proposal. On the contrary, you yourself have been posting that, "no one knows what's in," the bill. These two contentions you are making are directly contradictory.

False, once more. This is a very basic level idea, that I would not have thought would need explaining to a politically-aware adult, who has supposedly been paying attention to this issue, but of all the television interviews that are done with politicians, almost none are of the length and depth to go over anything close to the expansive reconciliation infrastructure bill. These interviews, at best, hit a handful of bullet-points, but usually are no more than a few sound-bite talking-points. To go over everything in the package, requires an extensive article, or an extended period of time, which is generally not allotted for interviews or news coverage.

If one were to go back over appearances of Democratic lawmakers on shows like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and so forth, it would be much easier to find interviews which glanced over the reconciliation bill in addition to other topics, than to find one that actually goes through the details of the bill, in a granular way. Many, many, interviews, in fact, come down to the host asking the politician, how are progressives in the Party going to be able to bridge the gap between themselves and more moderate Democrats, especially Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema. The answer often runs along the lines of progressives actually being more numerous, and more representative of the overall Democratic base; of their having been very consistent, from the start, that both parts of the infrastructure legislation are important & should move through Congress together; that the reconciliation bill is not a, "progressive," bill, but Joe Biden's agenda; and, if Democrats fail to enact the President's agenda, there will be a heavy toll to pay, in the 2022 midterm elections. Notice that none of this has anything to do with what is actually in the bill. As I had said, a few items from it, especially favored by that particular Dem, may get superficially mentioned; this is in no way a thorough explaining of the bill, to the public. The press is far more interested in presenting the intrigue of power struggles, than policy details, and is geared towards short glossing coverage of stories, unless they include sensational & deadly circumstances, like mass shootings.

Your assertions carry no weight, when the video, upon which your thread is based, logically contradicts this idea that the press has offered Dems an open forum to explain all the details of their human infrastructure package. When the Speaker gives a press conference, we do not typically see it, in its entirety, but are only shown a clip from it-- you are familiar with American news coverage, aren't you? If, as you claim, the package has been fulsomely explained, either in press analysis, or in coverage of politicians going over all the details of the plan, produce it, or cease making the baseless claim. I think the closest you are likely to come up with, is President Biden explaining his plan which, though far from thorough, is something, but nowhere near enough to say that the press have dispersed all the facts to the American people. Not all Americans watch every presidential speech, in its entirety, in case that is news to you.

I am not saying that this relieves from Democrats, the need to sell their package. And I think they should be doing more, in that regard. But, if the press were doing its job, these politicians would not be forced to do so in front of a room of Americans, the majority of whom have no idea what is in the Democratic plan.

 

We are discussing our opinions so of course it is about us to a degree.

No, she hasn't retracted it, but then it's not a significant story beyond right-wing media (I just looked - no-one else is reporting it). Trump's comment on the other hand was a major story. I don't know if you're being defensive or you really can't see why this point is irrelevant.

Regarding, "It's not about me", of course it's about you, about me, about all of us - all this forum is is our opinions. If you don't want your opinions scrutinised then why are you here? You'd be like a street preacher shouting at the pedestrians. Maybe that's basically what you want to do in which case, fine. But then what would be the point in talking to you? You wouldn't be listening.

 

Sorry for dupe comment- browser issue. Ignore 1st bit