It's easy to see why Trump rubs people the wrong way but he puts it out there, he is not trying to hide who he is. Whether you love him or despise him, he is a real person and it shows. Harris strikes me as a highly insecure but highly ambitious person who has no real sense of herself except in relation to whomever or whatever she is in the presence of. She's always trying to figure out what person to be what words to say for this audience. It shows. So people can't get hold of her. That essentially feels untrustworthy. Respectfully, I think Mr. Kahn has presented a pretty thoughtful perspective that was one of the most interesting things I've read lately and I've read quite a bit. How candidates handle themselves both scripted and unscripted is of critical importance. Imagine a one on one with a world leader. You have to know who you are to hold your own and ad lib, talk extemporaneously etc. It's hard to imagine her holding her center and doing that successfully if she can't handle a Joe Rogan interview.
I reread this essay to see if I could find anything objectionable. I didn’t. In fact, I found it to be an accurate assessment of the current political landscape.
Hi, I'm unsubscribing to your list. I liked a lot of your earlier pieces, but your barrage of dismissive comments about Harris and admiration of Trump's 'understanding of new media' is getting to me. It is far less analytical and values-driven than other things you write. For example, you don't compliment Bibi Netanyahu for his understanding of TV interviews. You talked about how Israel can't survive as a pariah state. And yet you can't get away from complimenting Trump a week before the election, and poking fun at Harris's reliance on 60 minutes. Have you heard Michelle Obama's speech? That was for you; double standards are most annoying coming from intelligent people. I hope my note offers food for thought. Who knows, I may resubscribe one day. Not now.
Well, let's chat after the election. If Harris wins, and I turn out to be wrong, I'll be thrilled. But I'm convinced that the Dems' mismanagement of political communication is going to cost them this election - and that will result in all kinds of down-the-road collateral damage. I don't think Netanyahu is particularly good at interviews - certainly not for a non-Israeli audience; and he's not in the middle of an election - so I didn't see any reason to talk about that in that article. Cheers, Sam
The writer gave Trump a very sideways compliment, yet didn't resort to calling him Hitler. He has some decent points. And you're going to unsubscribe? Sheesh.
I'm NOT unsubscribing, but I agree with nearly all of Ms. Pollin-Galay's comment. What struck me is that you made no mention that Harris, for example, HAS spoken with podcasters, such as Alex "Call Her Daddy" Cooper, who I understand to have the highest number of women listeners in the US. So this should be seen to be either a poorly researched, or an inappropriately one-sided, essay.
I said that Trump did them first and has done more of them. Pivotally, he’s also been doing podcasts that are likely to have more undecideds in their audience. Harris already has a huge advantage with women, so Alex Cooper and Brene Brown are unlikely to help her that much. Trump reached a very young audience through people like Adin Ross, and then Rogan is a real prize. Rogan has been for Kennedy, has the most listeners and has largely independent listeners. My guess is that the Rogan interview delivered Trump hundreds of thousands of votes.
30 years from now people will be asking - what the fuck happened to America with Rogan. A guy whose customer base is overwhelmingly young men and who have the least amount of education and interests in critical thinking but are looking for a guru. I suppose Rogan is as harmless as other so called gurus over the years but to assume that he is some kind of king maker or portal into a future American reality is a definition of insanity and un-seriousness .
I think we have pretty different ideas about Rogan’s appeal. To me, Rogan isn’t a guru or anything like that. Basically, he’s a really great interviewer - a successor to Howard Stern. It’s a form of entertainment that’s about mimicking regular conversation as much as possible - guys sitting around a bar, a poker table, that kind of thing. People talk about whatever it is they find really interesting - whether that’s aliens or drug trips or whatever - and there are no time limits, none of the constraints of the usual media channels. It feels like a good conversation every time, and that has an immense appeal.
I detest Joe Rogan, but then I am a gay guy who has little use for bros, especially when they're as credulous as Rogan. I have limited my exposure to Rogan, but what I have heard puts me right back among the slackers and stoners at my fraternity in the mid-70s. Their interests ranged all the way from baseball to beer. Every night was a party fueled by weed and booze where the objective was to crack each other up. No thanks.
It's easy to see why Trump rubs people the wrong way but he puts it out there, he is not trying to hide who he is. Whether you love him or despise him, he is a real person and it shows. Harris strikes me as a highly insecure but highly ambitious person who has no real sense of herself except in relation to whomever or whatever she is in the presence of. She's always trying to figure out what person to be what words to say for this audience. It shows. So people can't get hold of her. That essentially feels untrustworthy. Respectfully, I think Mr. Kahn has presented a pretty thoughtful perspective that was one of the most interesting things I've read lately and I've read quite a bit. How candidates handle themselves both scripted and unscripted is of critical importance. Imagine a one on one with a world leader. You have to know who you are to hold your own and ad lib, talk extemporaneously etc. It's hard to imagine her holding her center and doing that successfully if she can't handle a Joe Rogan interview.
I reread this essay to see if I could find anything objectionable. I didn’t. In fact, I found it to be an accurate assessment of the current political landscape.
Hi, I'm unsubscribing to your list. I liked a lot of your earlier pieces, but your barrage of dismissive comments about Harris and admiration of Trump's 'understanding of new media' is getting to me. It is far less analytical and values-driven than other things you write. For example, you don't compliment Bibi Netanyahu for his understanding of TV interviews. You talked about how Israel can't survive as a pariah state. And yet you can't get away from complimenting Trump a week before the election, and poking fun at Harris's reliance on 60 minutes. Have you heard Michelle Obama's speech? That was for you; double standards are most annoying coming from intelligent people. I hope my note offers food for thought. Who knows, I may resubscribe one day. Not now.
Well, let's chat after the election. If Harris wins, and I turn out to be wrong, I'll be thrilled. But I'm convinced that the Dems' mismanagement of political communication is going to cost them this election - and that will result in all kinds of down-the-road collateral damage. I don't think Netanyahu is particularly good at interviews - certainly not for a non-Israeli audience; and he's not in the middle of an election - so I didn't see any reason to talk about that in that article. Cheers, Sam
Sam, no one can please everyone. Ths is a free country. Please feel assured that for everyone you offend, there are more who salute!
The writer gave Trump a very sideways compliment, yet didn't resort to calling him Hitler. He has some decent points. And you're going to unsubscribe? Sheesh.
I'm NOT unsubscribing, but I agree with nearly all of Ms. Pollin-Galay's comment. What struck me is that you made no mention that Harris, for example, HAS spoken with podcasters, such as Alex "Call Her Daddy" Cooper, who I understand to have the highest number of women listeners in the US. So this should be seen to be either a poorly researched, or an inappropriately one-sided, essay.
I said that Trump did them first and has done more of them. Pivotally, he’s also been doing podcasts that are likely to have more undecideds in their audience. Harris already has a huge advantage with women, so Alex Cooper and Brene Brown are unlikely to help her that much. Trump reached a very young audience through people like Adin Ross, and then Rogan is a real prize. Rogan has been for Kennedy, has the most listeners and has largely independent listeners. My guess is that the Rogan interview delivered Trump hundreds of thousands of votes.
30 years from now people will be asking - what the fuck happened to America with Rogan. A guy whose customer base is overwhelmingly young men and who have the least amount of education and interests in critical thinking but are looking for a guru. I suppose Rogan is as harmless as other so called gurus over the years but to assume that he is some kind of king maker or portal into a future American reality is a definition of insanity and un-seriousness .
I think we have pretty different ideas about Rogan’s appeal. To me, Rogan isn’t a guru or anything like that. Basically, he’s a really great interviewer - a successor to Howard Stern. It’s a form of entertainment that’s about mimicking regular conversation as much as possible - guys sitting around a bar, a poker table, that kind of thing. People talk about whatever it is they find really interesting - whether that’s aliens or drug trips or whatever - and there are no time limits, none of the constraints of the usual media channels. It feels like a good conversation every time, and that has an immense appeal.
I detest Joe Rogan, but then I am a gay guy who has little use for bros, especially when they're as credulous as Rogan. I have limited my exposure to Rogan, but what I have heard puts me right back among the slackers and stoners at my fraternity in the mid-70s. Their interests ranged all the way from baseball to beer. Every night was a party fueled by weed and booze where the objective was to crack each other up. No thanks.