![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/41b5c783-d57f-40d0-8d1f-7ea32855c9ee.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
I respect that viewpoint. That was the most famous example. But I know people generally thought she was mean, crass, or shrill because she would call Trump names (accurately) during debates.
Being aggressive is cathartic for us who pay attention. But swing voters are inherently easier to push away and are inherently not as “sold” on Trump being a national crisis and don’t like being told what to think.
But I’m just an armchair analyst. So maybe I’m way off.
I support it. They have a job to let viewers know that the radical information is not true, and they should not take it as valid information to get worked up over.
It’s the difference between Trump sounding like a maniac vs exposing a controversy. They don’t need to stop him from sounding like a maniac. They just need to clarify that he is, in fact, a maniac.