Paul Holds His Ground Against Biased Interview
It is almost incredible how the media twists candidates words, their actions, and their past in order to find a point of attack. Recently, it is that Senator Rand Paul is “sexist,” for responding with a “testy” tone to two women news anchors, not surprisingly, from NBC and CNBC. In particular, the interview with CNBC anchor Kelly Evans, where Paul reportedly, “shushed,” her. Salon.com quickly labeled this as Paul not being able to handle an assertive woman. Kelly Evans did not even allow him to finish a question, and instead pushed her own “facts.”This has nothing to do with sexism. This has to do with journalism getting out of control.
This may sound like a joke, but it is not. Paul noted how the interview was not actually an interview, but more of an argument. In my previous article titled, “Don’t Be Fooled,” I spoke about just this problem. An “interview,” which should be objective and allow the candidate or the politician to shine, turns into the anchor saying their opinions and telling the interviewee how they are wrong.
This is a huge problem for the Republican party, and it comes from a source that is supposed to be unbiased. This has absolutely nothing to do with an assertive woman, it has to do with manners, with the context of what should be a TV appearance turned into an argument where the “unbiased” host gets his or her own opinions out. This has a huge affect on the viewers, who think that they are getting facts.
Why is it that media can tear politicians apart, but as soon as politicians hold their own ground, they are attacked? Watch the interview here, and decide if you think this is an “unbiased, objective interview.” This is not journalism, but a platform for propaganda in favor of the Democrat Party. This also has nothing to do with an anchor being a woman, but instead, with her being unprofessional.
Paul calls out Kelly Evans, and I think he should be commended for this as she misconstrued the interview, presented slanted facts, and turned it into an argument with “no useful information.”
Watch the interview here: