The strange upshot of defending the indefensible

I expect I’m not the only one to be rather dazzled by Kellyanne Conway’s ability to defend the indefensible Donald Trump with sweet reason itself. Here she is more coherent, more compelling, more forensic than pretty much anyone on media these days in her presentation of why the media simply imposes a narrative on a situation and shows utter disregard for what you’re trying to say if it’s ‘narrative’ isn’t going there.

Of course, her attack on Hilary Clinton is utterly self-interested and in that sense lacks any genuine bona fides. As if anyone on the Trump campaign gives two hoots about women not being given a fair go when sexually assaulted by men. And yet, Conway is surely an extraordinary character – calm, lucid, forensic and manages to make some extremely good points about the bankruptcy of the media in today’s politics. That she makes it from a position of bankruptcy herself is unfortunate for her – she deserved a better candidate to display her remarkable skills.

This entry was posted in Media. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The strange upshot of defending the indefensible

  1. Pappinbarra Fox says:

    I take it your first two sentences are ironic.

  2. Pappinbarra Fox says:

    I assumed irony because I could detect no sweet reason at all. What a heard was every subterranean trick in the adman’s hymn book to obfuscate and divert.
    Not a skerrick of coherence, compelling argument nor forensic analysis to be heard. Rather repetition, talking over the top of the interviewer and misdirection abounded. She never actually answered the question asked, though I also found the interviwer ineffective as well.

    • Julie Thomas says:

      I’m so with you Pappinbarra Fox. This looks like one of those very weird tricks in which Nicholas does his thing of desperately seeking some authenticity in the right wing nut jobs so he can maintain the fiction that he is in the centre.

      The obvious alteration of her visage that produces a resting bitch face – all those pumped up lips – often looks like fish face – should have been a warning that there is no sweet reason to be found behind the grasping for relevance fake face.

      You said what I heard although I could not get past the first sneering non-answer to the admittedly inadequate question. Thanks for responding. I couldn’t be arsed.

  3. Patrick says:

    Authenticity maintained, with this right wing nut job at least. She’s completely right.

    Personally, I’m not a fan, I think I’d rather vote for the greens than Trump (obviously unlikely to get a binary choice, or any choice, between those two but you get the point).

    The media made Trump a candidate by relentlessly, on every prime time or nearly and on every front page or nearly covering THE FACT THAT HE WAS THERE. They did NOT cover to even 1% of the same extent:
    – what the differences were between the impact of the different candidates’ policies were on specific groups of americans
    – what kind of policies would be likely to help the most disadvantaged americans, nor anything, not even what kind of policies might actually “MAGA”, nor even what “great” might mean

    Personally I don’t know why we are we are or how we got here. I’m so ignorant I don’t even know if here is a bad place or a good one!

    But I do strongly suspect that a big part of it is the media’s willingness to treat politician’s agendas as if they were or should be ours. The irony here is not in the post but in Brianna Keilar’s telling Conway just that: the news, according to Brianna/CNN, should be what the candidates are saying or have said, NOT what their policies are and what the impact of those are.

  4. Patrick says:

    For those who don’t appreciate Ms Conway as much, today I came across a description of her, based on the same qualities as she shows in the video above, as “an anaconda on speed” :)

    https://twitter.com/EpicureanDeal/status/792812230299545600

  5. Nicholas Gruen says:

    This is a nice illustration of Trump’s candour about how the whole thing is a put-on

    I can’t imagine Hilary or most other mainstream politicians being so transparent.

    “Funny how that term caught on, isn’t it?” Trump mused during a rally this month in Des Moines, Iowa. “I tell everyone, I hated it. Somebody said ‘drain the swamp’ and I said, ‘Oh, that is so hokey. That is so terrible.'”

    “I said, all right, I’ll try it,” Trump continued. “So like a month ago I said ‘drain the swamp’ and the place went crazy. And I said ‘Whoa, what’s this?’ Then I said it again. And then I start saying it like I meant it, right? And then I started to love it, and the place loved it. Drain the swamp. It’s true. It’s true. Drain the swamp.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.