Last week on Up To Date, we heard from three Kansas Citians who voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election about their perspectives of his performance so far in his second term.
The feedback came in quickly and loudly. Most of the people we heard from expressed everything from frustration to disgust — not only with the guests’ points of view, but also that host Steve Kraske didn't push back more and tell them they were all wrong.
At KCUR, we generally let our journalism speak for itself, with the knowledge that our audience understands that they won’t like or agree with everything they hear on our airwaves and online. And we’re used to all kinds of feedback, positive and negative (usually, about KCUR being too sympathetic to progressive causes).
But in light of this response, we wanted to share our conversation with you about why we booked this segment and why we affirm that it’s important to hear from people with different points of view — even if some of what aired was untrue or couldn’t be verified.
We offer neither a defense nor an apology for the segment, simply a transparent look at how we came to the decision we did. The following is a conversation between KCUR’s Director of Journalism Lisa Rodriguez, Up to Date host Steve Kraske and Up To Date producer Elizabeth Ruiz. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Did the onslaught of negative feedback surprise you?
Steve: Not at all. Obviously we anticipated some of that. You talk about a president named Donald Trump in 2026 and you're going to get a lot of really strong feelings on both sides of the ledger. And by all means we got a load of it.
This conversation was prerecorded the day before. Why didn't the Up To Date team go back in and edit out misinformation?
Lisa: We knew before this conversation aired that there were some statements made that we couldn't verify, statements that we knew weren't fact, and we allowed that to air because it was important for the context of the conversation. (The guests) weren't politicians or elected officials — they are people who cast a vote and had something to say about the reality they live in and about the president that they cast a vote for.
And for a lot of us, perception is reality. Our perception of the world is the reality we live in. And so it was important to us, ultimately, to keep that in. Still, the first time I heard the conversation in full was when it aired, I seized up a little bit hearing things that I knew to not be fact.
But I had to remind myself to consider that perspective, to consider that just because I know that it's not fact, and it made me uncomfortable to hear that as a trained journalist, that that is the reality for them, that they are living in. And we have to hear that because the majority of people in our states, Kansas and Missouri, voted for Donald Trump.
Why was it important to you to have this conversation on air?
Elizabeth: There are two reasons I wanted to produce this segment. President Trump came into office in 2025 and moved really quickly, transforming the country through (the Department of Government Efficiency), through tariffs, executive orders. Kansas City is a very “blue” city, and it's pretty easy to find people who would disagree with the president, but finding the support? It's there, it's part of our community and it should be welcome on our station.
Reason two was (Trump) ended his first year with a pretty low approval rating, and so I wanted to see if that translated into our voters here in Kansas City. Did they feel the same way?
Lisa: You note that Kansas City is blue, and a majority voted blue, but it's not uniformly blue, either.
Why was the conversation one-sided? Why didn't you book someone who had an opposing point of view to balance that conversation?
Steve: Well, we wanted to hear from Trump voters at a time when his popularity is declining across the country, about why people are still sticking with him. I get asked about that all the time, and I know a lot of our reporters do. "Why do people still back Donald Trump, after all this chaos, all this controversy?" We wanted to present a response to that.
One of the struggles we have on our talk show is that it's become increasingly difficult to get Republicans to come on frequently and answer some of these things. So we're looking at different ways to get that side of the story.
Elizabeth: I'd say for me, this conversation wasn't meant to be two-sided at all. We wanted to hear specifically from that voting group about the president, so we weren't trying to have an even conversation on this. I think our station does a great job putting a human voice to immigrants in our community, to organizations that are losing funding, things like that.
When I reached out about this segment, initially in November, I had a person that said, "The border is extremely important to my family. I like that he's delivering on his campaign promises. I don't hate Democrats or liberals, and I hope you don't hate me for my opinion."
And so I think that person should have a voice, too. That person did not join this conversation. But those voices are out there. There's a reason that they voted for President Trump, there's a reason that they still support him, and I think we need to understand what that is.
A lot of the feedback we got is that these guests went unchallenged when they said something that was untrue or that you couldn't verify. Why didn't you counter that more forcefully in real time?
Steve: I think we did push back on any number of points. But I also think that when we talk politics in this raw sort of way, what happens a lot of times is that conservatives want me to drive a rhetorical ax through the head of a liberal, and the converse is also true. They're not satisfied unless they really see blood on the ground. And that's not what we're about here — we're about conversations.
I also would argue that most of what we heard was opinion from these folks. That's what we wanted to have, and wanted to get their point of view about this president at this moment in time, and I think most of the conversation was centered exactly in that place.
Elizabeth: I did background calls with all the guests. Those help inform our conversation and shape the direction that we're going to go. And it gives you a chance to prepare for what they might say. However, it's a live conversation. It doesn't quite go the way that you might think it will all the time.
Lisa: I think the other thing to reiterate is that they weren't politicians. We do hold politicians to a different standard, and perhaps you would have heard that more if they had been elected officials.
So, what's the takeaway from a conversation like this?
Lisa: I think it's important to remind ourselves how diverse this region is, where we're largely a blue dot in two red states. And it's important to acknowledge the variety of opinions and realities that people are living across across our region.The point of this conversation isn't, "Did we make the right call, or did we make the wrong call?"
I just think this is part of our job as journalists, and the discomfort is something to pay attention to.
