From: Thuc Vu <thucvu_1>
Date: Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 7:45 PM
https://vietorg.com/pstvw/23931/vie
.
English version
Reporter, Interrogator, or Judge?
A Lesson for Journalists from the Exchange Between Kristen Welker and President Donald Trump
By Trieu Giang (images from the Internet)
I entered the profession of journalism in the early 1970s. Over more than half a century with pen in hand, I have had the opportunity to interview thousands of people from all walks of life, from ordinary citizens to politicians, religious leaders, business executives, and heads of state. Through all those years in the profession, I learned one simple but profoundly important lesson: a journalist may ask the toughest and most probing questions, but must never transform himself or herself into a judge.
For that reason, as I watched the nearly hour-long interview between Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press and President Donald Trump in a corrugated-metal shed during a rainstorm in Wisconsin, I felt both disappointment and a sense that this interview offered a valuable lesson for members of the media.
First, it must be acknowledged that Kristen Welker was given a rare opportunity. Not every journalist is granted nearly an hour with a President of the United States to discuss some of the most important issues facing the nation and the world.
For much of the interview, the two discussed the Middle East conflict, the U.S. economy, gasoline prices, inflation, unemployment, trade policy, the appointment of a new Chair of the Federal Reserve, and many other pressing issues. These are subjects that genuinely matter to the public and could have provided valuable insights.
However, the interview began to take a different turn when the discussion shifted to the 2020 presidential election.
President Trump repeated his long-held position that the 2020 election showed signs of irregularities and had been stolen. He also cited California’s prolonged vote-counting process as one reason for his skepticism about the integrity of the electoral system.
Readers may completely disagree with those claims. I am not writing here to determine whether the allegations concerning the 2020 election are true or false. What interests me is the interviewing method itself. In journalism, the way a question is asked can sometimes be just as important as the answer.
During the published exchange, Kristen Welker repeatedly interrupted President Trump with statements such as:
"There’s no evidence of that, sir."
"But sir, there’s no evidence of that."
"That’s not evidence."
"You’ve never presented evidence."
Within only a few minutes, the phrase "no evidence" was repeated over and over again.
Here, it is important to distinguish a fundamental principle of journalism.
A journalist has every right—and indeed a professional obligation—to ask an interviewee for evidence. But a journalist is not an investigator, not a prosecutor, and certainly not a judge.
A journalistic question could have been framed this way:
"Mr. President, many election experts and courts have concluded that the arguments you’ve presented do not establish evidence of widespread election fraud. How do you respond to those assessments?"
That is an open-ended question. It allows the interviewee to present his reasoning while also informing the audience of opposing viewpoints.
By contrast, when the interviewer repeatedly declares:
"You have no evidence,"
the role of the questioner begins to shift into the role of someone delivering a verdict.
In my view, this is the moment when Kristen Welker began moving beyond the traditional role of a journalist.
An honest and fair journalist may cite experts, court decisions, or public opinion. But when the journalist repeatedly presents her own conclusion that the interviewee "has no evidence," the conversation ceases to be a search for truth and becomes a debate between two opposing positions.
Unfortunately, that approach transformed the interview into a confrontation rather than an opportunity for public understanding.
If President Trump is wrong, allow him to fully present his arguments and then challenge them with facts.
If he is right, the public has a right to hear that as well.
In either case, the beneficiary should be the audience, not the ego of the interviewer.
As the interview progressed, the atmosphere became increasingly tense. Policy discussions gradually gave way to personal attacks. President Trump began criticizing NBC, Meet the Press, and Kristen Welker herself.
That is often a sign that an interview has failed to maintain its journalistic purpose and has devolved into a personal confrontation.
The most notable moment came when President Trump declared:
"Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough."
He stood up and ended the interview.
Kristen Welker then responded:
"Mr. President, we traveled all the way to Wisconsin for this interview."
To me, that was not a powerful statement. On the contrary, it seemed rather awkward.
Traveling to Wisconsin to conduct the interview was part of the journalist’s professional responsibility and the network’s decision. It does not create an obligation on the part of the interviewee to continue a conversation he believes is no longer constructive.
In my experience, a successful interview is not one in which the interviewer dominates the other person.
A successful interview is one in which the interviewee reveals his thinking, his arguments, his strengths, and even his weaknesses before the public.
To achieve that, a journalist must know how to ask the right questions.
I have interviewed thousands of people during more than fifty years in journalism. Never once did I believe that obtaining the answers I sought required me to become louder, more aggressive, or more determined to force the interviewee to accept my conclusions.
On the contrary, the more difficult the subject, the more patience, composure, and skill the journalist must demonstrate.
Journalism is fundamentally a profession of inquiry and discovery.
A journalist is not a police officer conducting an interrogation.
A journalist is not a prosecutor seeking a conviction.
A journalist is not a judge handing down a sentence.
Even in a courtroom, before a verdict is reached, the accused is given an opportunity to present evidence, call witnesses, and defend himself.
Yet in this interview, it seemed to me that Kristen Welker inadvertently assumed all three roles at once: investigator, prosecutor, and judge.
The result was an interview that ended in tension, produced little new information for the public, and ultimately became more of a story about the interviewer than about the important national issues that should have been discussed.
I do not view this as Kristen Welker’s failure alone. Rather, I see it as a valuable lesson for all media professionals.
In the age of social media, many journalists are drawn into the pressure of creating viral moments, dramatic confrontations, and attention-grabbing exchanges. But the core mission of journalism has not changed: to seek truth, listen to multiple perspectives, and help the public understand issues more deeply.
A great journalist is not the person who wins an argument with an interview subject.
A great journalist is the person who helps the public discover the truth through that conversation.
A journalist is not a police interrogator. A journalist is not a prosecutor. A journalist is not a judge. A journalist is someone who opens the door to dialogue so that the public can see the truth for themselves.
When journalists forget that mission, an interview ceases to be journalm and becomes merely an argument.
And in such arguments, the ultimate loser is often not the interview subject—but the public itself.
Link to the interview transcript:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/read-transcript-president-donald-trump-interviewed-nbc-news-meet-press-rcna348508
*TG
(June 2026)
Liên Minh Bảo Hiến Mỹ Gốc Việt
Vietnamese American Conservative Alliance (VACA)
https://freedom-vaca.org/vaca-blog-tieng-viet-nam/