Introduction

When it comes to political figures and their media coverage, perceptions of bias or fairness often depend on one's baseline of media consumption. This article delves into the controversy surrounding MM Lauer's interview with Donald Trump, examining the claims of biased treatment and the role of media in shaping public perceptions.

Biases in Mainstream Media

Mainstream media outlets are known for their liberal leanings, which can shape public opinion. However, when a more balanced or objective approach is taken, some viewers or readers perceive it as biased against their preferred viewpoints. This phenomenon is often attributed to the subjective nature of perception and the diverse readership of media outlets.

The Lauer-Donald Trump Interview

Matt Lauer's interactions with Donald Trump, which lasted for 90 minutes, have drawn significant scrutiny. According to some conservative critics, Lauer appeared to be excessively lenient and lenient with Trump, while Hillary Clinton was treated more critically. The specific points of contention include the number of interruptions, the focus (or lack thereof), and the overall tone of the interview.

A Balanced Analysis

The statistics show that Lauer interrupted Trump 13 times, whereas he interrupted Hillary Clinton 7 times. Notably, Lauer did not bring up the Clinton Foundation once, which some commentators have highlighted. The perception of bias stems from a combination of the interruption count and the absence of certain topics. However, this interpretation is colored by partisan viewpoints, leading to a distorted view of the interview.

Role of the Interviewer

The role of the interviewer is to facilitate constructive dialogue and ensure that both sides receive fair treatment. In this instance, Lauer's methods and the topics he chose to focus on have been questioned. This analysis suggests that Lauer may have been influenced by his background in light entertainment content, leading him to adopt a more casual and less probing approach.

Insufficient Knowledge and Communication Skills

One of the key reasons for Lauer's perceived bias is his lack of in-depth knowledge about political and military matters. Lauer, known for his morning shows and light entertainment segments, may not have the extensive background or rigorous fact-checking skills that a political news reporter would possess. This could explain why he seemed less adept at navigating complex topics and probing deeper into sensitive issues:

Examples of Misunderstandings

Taking the Oil as War Crime: Lauer may not have been familiar with the term "taking the oil" as a war crime, leading to a less nuanced follow-up.

President-Military Relationship: Lauer may not fully understand how the relationship between the president and the military operates, making his comments on firing generals seem ill-informed.

Intelligence Briefings: The structure and content of intelligence briefings are designed to be apolitical, focusing on current events rather than policy recommendations. Lauer may not have grasped this distinction, resulting in comments that were not reflective of the briefing's nature.

Email Questions to Hillary Clinton: Lauer's phrasing of questions to Hillary Clinton suggests a lack of understanding of the political context and the proper stance of a journalist during interviews.

Explanation of Actions

Given Lauer's background in entertainment journalism, his approach to the interview can be explained by his overreliance on a more informal, casual style. This method is typical of morning shows and light entertainment segments, where the focus is on engaging the audience and maintaining a positive atmosphere. However, in a political interview, such a light-touch approach can be seen as inadequate or even biased.

Trump's Influence on Interview Choice

It is also worth noting that Donald Trump himself may have influenced the decision to have Lauer conduct the interview. Trump may have seen Lauer as someone who would not press the candidate too hard, possibly resulting in a softer, more favorable interview. This explanation aligns with the perception among some conservatives that Trump was being handled gently, while Hillary Clinton faced more critical questioning.

Conclusion

Whether the Lauer-Trump interview was biased or fair is a matter of perspective. From a neutral standpoint, the interview may have lacked the probing and in-depth questioning that some would expect from a political discussion. However, this does not necessarily mean that the interview was biased, but rather that it was conducted within a different journalistic framework. Understanding the media's role and the context of the interview helps to provide a more balanced view of the event.