@blatham,
You can look at "Talking Points" as a helpful way to summarize valid points that should be considered when people associated with one side or the other speak to the media, or you can look at them as a list if the lied and dodges shills for one side or the other should make certain they mention when talking to the media.
How you do most often depends on what side you occupy and which side's Talking Points you're considering.
I can certainly see the value of them in terms of managing a consistent communication strategy among people who are designated as or assume the role of spokesperson for one side or the other. Crafting a communication strategy can be, but need not be an exercise in deceit.
My biggest problems with Talking Points relate more to those who use them than the lists themselves:
Drives me nuts when I hear the exact same wording of a particular point from multiple spokespersons. Have they been forced to memorize them? Are they reading from the list? Are they so poorly informed on the topic or so disbelieving of the validity of the point that they can't be trusted to express it with conviction in their own words?
Also drives me nuts, when someone being interviewed doesn't even make an effort to artfully weave a talking point into the answer of an unrelated question.
Interviewer: "Before we discuss the Mueller investigation, I understand that you have just returned from a series of trade meetings with Pacific Rim nations. Can you provide us with your assessment of how these talks went and if any major agreements were reached?
Interviewee: "There is no case for obstruction of justice. This point has been made by legal scholars from both sides of the aisle over and over again."
Can't stand either when a spokesperson realizes the interview is wrapping up and he or she starts talking over everyone and rattling of as many points as possible like the speed reading in a TV or radio ad of the fine print stuff required by law.
Finally, it also bugs me when people, not likely to be the spokespersons, assume without offer critical explanation for doing so that all of a list of Talking Points are false and their intent is sinister and venal.
Phillip Rucker in his tweet displays the typical conceit or journalists that has led to an erosion of standards:
The story is as much or more about them than anything else.
There is only one point that addresses WaPo's big
scoop (I wonder if Rucker was on Twitter crowing about WaPos other big
scoop that DAG Rosenstein threatened to quit?) and it does so in the context of leaks (which is precisely how the story was obtained). It's a bit of a diversionary tactic, but it's true that the level of leaks in DC today is unprecedented and the impact is largely negative.
Trump's political opponents (including those in the MSM) understandably want to cast this entire matter as a grand Morality Play wherein Truth & Justice is embroiled in a desperate battle with Greed & Corruption, and virtues and sins have already been on display and will likely continue to be, but attempting to construct the entire story in this matter and ignoring the huge driving force of power politics is at best farcical.
Are the American people supposed to have concluded by now (Thanks to WaPo and the NY Times) that because they've reported that Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction; based on the word of unnamed "officals," that the case is closed and Trump and his associates are all guilty? The Administration and it's spokesperson are not entitled to advance any arguments that might challenge such a conclusion? That a list of the points to be raised in such arguments is somehow evidence of their venality?
Res ipsa loquitur! The talking points list speaks for itself! No counter-arguments are required, it's mere existence is evidence of guilt and fear.
