You know, everybody knows some of what politicians say is malarkey, and having somebody there to call them on it is good. I'd be happy to do that any time and any place.
The only time I've ever felt like I needed to measure my activity and involvement in holding people accountable for being violent on social media is when I think about the things that I might lose for saying something. That's the only time I end up thinking about it.
The most important responsibility we have as journalists is to question those who are in power. I honestly believe that.
Washington thrives on scapegoats.
In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.
Interviewers, even the ones that support the person they're interviewing, have an obligation to probe further and push back when a candidate says something dangerous.
I think sometimes it's about just finding the measuring stick that's different than the one the world puts on you. It's finding the one in which you're held accountable and how you hold each other accountable; what a good job looks like in a particular situation and how to be better at your job than you were yesterday.
I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems...
None of the candidates are ever perfect, ok? Then you have to get them in there and you have to hold them accountable. You have to make noises.
Sometimes comforting the afflicted does require afflicting the comfortable.
You're constantly asking yourself, 'Am I doing enough? Am I living up to this moment? Am I asking the toughest questions of the president to make sure we're continuing to do our job to hold him accountable for his words and his promises?'
