Bush's interviews have always been characterized by their, ah, non-spontaneous nature. That is, the answers are pretty much all known beforehand, even when the questions are not (to make it even more plain: stock answers are used when unexpected questions arise).
US reporters haven't been doing any hard hitting at all -- calling Bush on those evasions.
The irish reporter in the above article wasn't nearly as hard hitting as she could be (check the interview transcript), and even then got an official complaint made by the white house. For instance, she points out that in many people's viewpoints, the invasion of Iraq has increased the level of terrorism around the world, stating that terrorists attacks are now a near daily occurence while two years ago they were not. Bush just started talking about September 11th, as if that were some sort of cue for terrorists to increase their attacks.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I posted this the other day ^^ Bush just looks... so...
I'll rant about it a little later...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's called European Journalism.
You don't let 'em leave 'till they've given you an answer. That is how journalism should be. Politicians should be forced to give real answers, and if they refuse to, make sure the people listening know that:
"Well since you're not going to answer that question, sir, moving right along..."
The thing to do is to be absolutely polite about it. *evil laugh*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
The part I found disturbing was when she asked him about religion.
quote: Q Do you believe that the hand of God is guiding you in this war on terror?
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I think that God -- that my relationship with God is a very personal relationship. And I turn to the good Lord for strength. And I turn to the good Lord for guidance. I turn to the good Lord for forgiveness.
But the God I know is not one that -- the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom. But I get great sustenance from my personal relationship. That doesn't make me think I'm a better person than you are, by the way. Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own.
What bothers me about it that he said he didn't think he was a better person than she was.
My question is, since she didn't ask, why would he have brought it up, unless he actually was thinking he was better than she was. It just seems like a really weird thing to say, but maybe it's just me.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I've heard several people use qualifiers like that when discussing their spiritual beliefs. I think it's usually done over worry that they might offend the other person.
space opera
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Wow, he did not sound happy in that interview transcript.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I think its interesting how they say things like, "Bush's tendency to respond by testily demanding ," and, "Bush replied increduously "
They should just report how the interview took place, not write it like a book.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Did you listen to the interview or read the transcript? I can easily see how those adjectives fit in. I doubt it's much of an exaggeration.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Promethius: I agree.
[rant] It bugs me no end when reporters editorialize. Let the columnists add their interpretations, the reporters have an obligation to present the facts as objectively as possible.
If you can read a news article and determine the political beliefs of the reporter, that reporter has not done his or her job. [/rant]
Suneun: Just removing the adverbs wouild be enough.
"Bush's tendency to respond by testily demanding ," and, "Bush replied increduously "
"Bush's tendency to respond by demanding ," and, "Bush replied "
Just as informative and it avoids loaded words that can color the readser's opinions. Keep in mind that I'm not attempting to defend Mr. Bush - I'm opposed to the vast majority of his presidency, in fact - but I despise sloppy reporting.
[ July 02, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
I agree Chris--reporters will always be influenced by their political beliefs, even when they are simply choosing what to report (and what to omit)!
The sad thing is when they are so sure they're being "even handed" that they can no longer detect and filter their own biases.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I posted this video the other day. Use Real Media to play it.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I'd love to see some of the reporters that have grilled Tony Blair take Bush on in a live interview. It'd be interesting to say the least.
I kinda feel sorry for public officials who don't get "pre-fed" the questions, but then again, they signed up for it knowing the requirements and they obviously accepted them.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I kinda feel sorry for public officials who don't get "pre-fed" the questions
Why? When you take an exam do you get pre-fed the answers? No. You can predict what you'll be asked, but no one is giving you the answers. An interview is like an exam, for a politician. The politician should study to know the potemtial answers- if they resort to blather it's the same as any person resorting to blather in an attempt to get full marks.
Don't feel sorry for them. When was the last time you knew the answers to an exam. These people are supposed to be the elite, our leaders. Instead we treat them like remedial students!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)