CNN's Brianna Keilar interviewed Florida legislator Anthony Sabatini this week about his crusade to sue Florida counties because of the unconstitutional nature of mask mandates. He said the mandate violates the privacy clause in Florida's constitution by claiming "it violates the bodily and facial autonomy sort of implied parts of the Florida privacy clause." He also goes on to say "it violates the due process clause because it's an arbitrary and irrational law."
It isn't irrational to wear a mask around other people that you might infect with a highly contagious and potentially deadly virus that you might not know you have (or maybe you do know you have), which makes the mandate the opposite of arbitrary.
She asks him whether seat belts are unconstitutional. He welcomes her analogy by explaining that it's different because "seat belts...are...assigned for people to wear in very highly regulated areas of public domain...." He adds that, unlike the seat belt law, the mask mandates "literally are everywhere you go."
Of course, we only need to wear seat belts while we're traveling on roads because a) that's where cars live and b) that's where cars pose a threat to human life. The mask mandate does the same thing: It requires us to wear protection only in areas where we pose a risk to human life; that just happens to be in stores and other buildings and when we're in crowds. That's the dangerous domain right now. I wonder if he's under the impression that the mask mandate extends to taking a shower or having dinner with his family. That might account for his proclamation of "literally everywhere" and"arbitrary and irrational."
I won't re-hash the entire interview because you can watch it above.
There are a few general points to be made about news and opinion shows, some of which seem to have a difficult time with this new norm of people lying and being misleading while going unchecked.
Anchors: Take a Lesson from Keilar
Listen: It was obvious that Keilar was actually listening and processing what was being said before responding. I've seen subsequent interviews that she's conducted, and she's usually displayed the same skill and respect.
Welcome other perspectives: She allows the guest to provide his or her own information and spin (which is part of listening).
Respond to the guest: She has logical follow-up questions or corrections based on what the guest offers, not solely on her own agenda and pre-written questions or comments. She was not automatically out to prove anyone wrong, which can come across as pursuing a goal instead of pursuing the process of uncovering information.
Stop being afraid: She does not allow guests to lie or provide incomplete information and to just let that sit. She uses facts and logic. It's time to stop being afraid of insulting guests who lie and to start going on offense and correcting lies and misinformation as they occur, whether it's the president, a member of congress, or anyone else.
Anchors of the myriad news/current events/opinion shows should be doing a lot of homework, studying the facts, reading the raw data, thinking about the nuance, and being respectful. Some do, but I've seen too many who just roll over and let the lies be the last word or talk over guests.
And It's not enough to have a subsequent guest to counter some of the lies or misinformation. By that point, some people have tuned out or turned off; besides, inevitably, some of the previous lies get lost in the current conversation. It has to be done in real time by people who have done their homework and are willing to do their jobs, not just entertain us.