How to win the Gannon debate with a Winger

[MostlyLurks]

Right now, this Gannon thing is not getting a lot of mainstream press, so it's likely you're going to run into RW associates who have no knowledge of it. Here is a suggestion on how to beat the living snot out of them with it.

In passing (i.e. don't run up to them breathlessly and begin spilling your guts), mention that you have read recently that a reporter with close ties to the Democratic party was revealed to be a day-to-day member of the WH press briefing during the Clinton administration. This reporter asked softball questions of the press secreatary, often using inflammatory language. As an option, depending on how informed your mark is, you might want to insert something like "he actually, at one point, called the opposition 'divorced from reality'".

Let your mark fume and fulminate.

Then go on to mention that the same leftist reporter used a pseudonym in the process.

Watch the steam pour out their ears.

Then go on to mention that the reporter has ties to web sites with pay-for-sex overtones.

At this point, the mark will probably go off on a tirade about the Clenis, etc. Let it pass.

Finish up with "And you know the thing is, the fake news organization he worked for removed all of his stories from their web site once the reporter's identity was compromised. Like they're trying to cover something up."

Settle in for the "liberal media" tirade.

Now drop the hammer: "You know, now that I think about, it was actually a reporter in the Bush WH, with ties to the Republican Party. Sorry, I got it backward. My bad. But I'm really happy to see that you're as outraged as I am about all this and I'm sure that doesn't change your opinion at all."

Walk away.

[aden_nak]

1. Many a time, I have used that general technique.

I'd say, "During the Clinton era ." Usually, they are already upset by the time I get done with the word "era". Then I drop the switch on them and watch them flounder.

[tabasco]

2. There really is no debate.

Are these points debatable?

1. Reporters and news services should strive for objectivity.
2. Only bonafide reporters should be part of the White House press pool.
3. A person who purports to be a reporter, who works for a news website that has existed for one day, is not a bonafide reporter. .
4. Persons using aliases should not be granted White House press credentials.
5. It is a violation of security measures to allow persons access to White House press conferences without adequate background information.

I don't think reasonable people can disagree on these points. The Gannon incident is wrongful conduct and anyone who defends it is not worth debating.

[MostlyLurks]

3. You underestimate the ability of Wingnuts to equivocate. n/t

[Salviati]

4. Yeah, but at least if it doesn't make them think...

...it's still fun to watch them squirm under the white hot fire of reason.