Watching this is like watching Pravda in action. But it gets worse.
The White House Channel on YouTube. The clip with Chip Reid and Helen Thomas finally showing some discomfort, if not outright shock, at the bullying tactics of the Obama administration, is from 7/1. Notice on this second link, they skip from 6/26 to 7/2, leaving that press briefing out. It's still posted, but it's hidden from the playlist. You have to search for it specifically.
You can start at 13:45 if you want to see the full context of that initial clip.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there text? I'd prefer not to stream.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
did a quick Google for transcript, I think this is it Transcript EDIT: I think this is a longer transcript Transcript 2 Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Here's a transcript of that part. Sounds to me like Gibbs was caught off guard and just had a bad day. It happens. And it doesn't sound like this event is any more tightly controlled than any other political event of the last decade or so from either side. I'm guessing it's just a day of bad tempers in the White House Press Room.
quote:Q At today's town hall meeting, questions coming in on YouTube and Twitter and such -- who decides what questions will be asked?
MR. GIBBS: I think a group over at New Media is shuffling through questions. I think if you go on -- I did not do this today, but I think if you go on our Web site you'll see some of those questions. And I think, Chip, at the end of the day, when you -- I think the questions that will be read to the President -- obviously he'll take some questions from the audience there -- I think will be a representative sample of the issues in this debate that we're dealing with.
Q And the audience is all preselected, right?
MR. GIBBS: No, we usually just generally hand out tickets on a first come, first serve basis.
Q Well, I think in this case, the people were invited either by the White House or by the university -- I mean, invited by this community college, as it was explained to us.
MR. GIBBS: Well, if the university is --
Q It just feels very tightly controlled. It feels -- I mean, the concept of a town hall I think is to have a open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and a list of questions. Why do it that why? Why not open it up to the public?
MR. GIBBS: How about we do this -- how about you can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked rather than preselecting your question based on something that may or may not come through.
Q But why pre-select? Why not just open it up for people and allow any question to come in?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I think if you get on your computer from your e-mail address --
Q I have. I have.
MR. GIBBS: Have you sent in your question?
Q I think that would be inappropriate. This is for the public.
MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, I'm confused -- are you not a member of the public?
Q Well, I think if you were going to allow questions from the press you'd have us in a prominent position over there and allow us to ask questions -- you haven't done that.
MR. GIBBS: Let's not get into the notion of where you'd be sitting -- (laughter) -- if I let you ask a question, but --
Q Well out of shouting range.
MR. GIBBS: Well, but you could e-mail.
Q Would you put my question in there? I don't think so.
MR. GIBBS: Maybe. Have you e-mailed?
Q I mean, this is a town hall.
MR. GIBBS: It's a little -- if you haven't e-mailed.
Q This is an open forum for the public to ask questions, but it's not really open.
MR. GIBBS: I couldn't agree more.
Q But it's not open.
MR. GIBBS: Based on what?
Q Based on the information that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected.
MR. GIBBS: The questions are being selected by people that e-mail on Facebook and Twitter.
Q Well, they're not deciding what questions actually get in.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, I appreciate, again --
Q It just feels completely controlled --
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate, again --
Q -- in a way unlike his town meetings all the campaign and --
MR. GIBBS: I appreciate the pre-selected question on your part.
Q Will there be dissenting views --
Q Yes, how about that?
MR. GIBBS: I think that's a very safe bet. But, again, let's -- how about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted at Annandale --
Q I'm perfectly happy to --
Q That's not his point. The point is the control --
Q Exactly.
Q -- we have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not --
Q This White House.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.
Q I'm amazed -- I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and --
MR. GIBBS: Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.
Q It doesn't matter. It's the process.
Q You have left open --
Q Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.
Q It's shocking. It's really shocking.
MR. GIBBS: Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?
Q Okay.
MR. GIBBS: I think --
Q No, no, no, we're having it now --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I'd be happy to have it now.
Q It's a pattern.
MR. GIBBS: Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?
Q It's a pattern. It isn't the question --
MR. GIBBS: What's a pattern?
Q It's a pattern of controlling the press.
MR. GIBBS: How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press -- poorly, I might add. (Laughter.)
Q Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q Well, and controlling the public --
Q How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.
MR. GIBBS: We had this discussion ad nauseam and --
Q Of course you would because you don't have any answers.
MR. GIBBS: Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead.
Q Well, you should have.
Q Thank you for your support.
MR. GIBBS: That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?
Q I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.
Q Actually, could you pass along a question to the President from all of us, is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?
MR. GIBBS: I will -- if you get on your computer you can ask him that yourself.
Q I think you're a more direct pipeline than --
MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I was just told that you guys have a pretty good -- go ahead.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Seemed pretty moronic to me. I mean, I am not a White House spokesperson, but even I knew where they were going wiht it.
BTW, he is hardly the first person to do this, or the first President, and I think he has a right to do this.
But I wouldn't be making such a big deal about how open the discussion is going to be if I was hand picking the questions and the people asking them before the "town meeting" ever started.
I'd hardly call it bullying, though. Not even close.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I'm ignorant on this issue - Hopefully I understood the controversy correctly. A couple of questions:
Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
He's far from the first president. It's been done this way since the early 1900s. Maybe earlier. There are reporters who are assigned to the White House and attend all White House press briefings. The press secretary (Robert Gibbs) takes questions from the press, sometimes choosing people who raise their hands and sometimes pausing to answer shouted questions. I'm not sure how one becomes a White House reporter, other then getting assigned by a major news agency.
In terms of the tone of their interaction. It's unusual but not that unusual. They interact on a daily basis and it's often in an oppositional way - with the press always wanting more information, and often information that Secretary Gibbs doesn't want to give yet (for political, or diplomatic reasons). It's the press secretaries job to figure out how much and what information he can give with out endangering legislative or diplomatic efforts the White House is under taking. Of course, the press wants all the information so... you can see where the conflict - and possible annoyance comes from.
If you want an inside look at how the White House works that is dramatized but fairly accurate, watch a few episodes of The West Wing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The questioner sounded like a bully to me.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: He's far from the first president. It's been done this way since the early 1900s. Maybe earlier. There are reporters who are assigned to the White House and attend all White House press briefings. The press secretary (Robert Gibbs) takes questions from the press, sometimes choosing people who raise their hands and sometimes pausing to answer shouted questions. I'm not sure how one becomes a White House reporter, other then getting assigned by a major news agency.
In terms of the tone of their interaction. It's unusual but not that unusual. They interact on a daily basis and it's often in an oppositional way - with the press always wanting more information, and often information that Secretary Gibbs doesn't want to give yet (for political, or diplomatic reasons). It's the press secretaries job to figure out how much and what information he can give with out endangering legislative or diplomatic efforts the White House is under taking. Of course, the press wants all the information so... you can see where the conflict - and possible annoyance comes from.
If you want an inside look at how the White House looks that is dramatized but fairly accurate, watch a few episodes of The West Wing.
That's what I was thinking.
The title of this thread gave the impression that somehow the Obama administration is more secretive than the previous ones, but it seems more like standard political bureaucracy.
I have to say thought that Gibbs, who I have never seen before, didn't seem very good at handling himself in general. He seems like a kind of guy who comes off as nervous even when there isn't any reason to be nervous. Not a very good character trait for someone in his position.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
double post
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think that how Obama picks the reporters in attendance at his press conferences is truly indicative of how open or transparent his administration is.
This sounds an awful lot like reporters whining.
Now, if the administration refuses to disclose certain, perhaps personally damaging memos for trumped up reasons of national security...that may be reason to cry foul.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well it is Helen Thomas, she's a notoriously tough questioner. I dunno who Chip is. Reading from the beginning it sounds like he's intentionally trying to spin it as White House control, but it doesn't look to me like they're are controlling it much more than is usual for this sort of political event.
And the reason Robert Gibbs wants them to wait is to prove that even though they select the questions and the questioners, they do it even handedly and don't just select friendly questions. There are certain questions they know they need to answer. Certain things they want to explain. If they make sure to preselect the question, then they can make sure to get to give those answers and explainations. Then they can take other questions. I'm not sure if they're preselecting some questions or all of them. But I don't blame them for doing it at all.
By the way, way to continue the spin Lisa, but I shouldn't expect anything more than that from you.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Uh, since when is vetting the questions sent in by the average joe not allowed? How else would they do it? Random selection? Good luck with getting interesting insightful questions that way. Of course they're going to be pre-selected for quality and comprehensiveness.
Gibbs is absolutely right to ask the interviewer to hear the questions that got through before judging him. If the answers that get asked are weak and un-revealing, then the press has every right to complain.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
The White House Press Room reporters themselves are always pre-screened for security reasons, and are usually nominated to be there by the press organization they represent. I rememeber one time where Bush II got into a spat of trouble over having a "reporter" in the press corps who was basically a glorified conservative blogger, who tended to ask only "softball" questions which would make the White House look good.
The issue at hand here seems to be that the questions themselves have the appearance of being pre-screened, which is a very big deal indeed. The press corps (and the journalism profession itself) prides itself on its objectivity and independence, and the one thing they don't want to have is the appearance of being "handled" by anyone. As with any new administration, the first few months have been given a sort of "pass" by the press, though some argue the Obama administration has been treated exceptionally by the press due to the fact that most of the press agrees with Obama ideologically.
I don't know specifically about whether this type of press conference has always been the norm in the White House, but Helen Thomas has been covering the president since Kennedy, so if she's objecting (rather strongly, I would say) then one could make the case that this is an unusually controlling administration.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote: Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
The White House Press Room reporters themselves are always pre-screened for security reasons, and are usually nominated to be there by the press organization they represent. I rememeber one time where Bush II got into a spat of trouble over having a "reporter" in the press corps who was basically a glorified conservative blogger, who tended to ask only "softball" questions which would make the White House look good.
The issue at hand here seems to be that the questions themselves have the appearance of being pre-screened, which is a very big deal indeed. The press corps (and the journalism profession itself) prides itself on its objectivity and independence, and the one thing they don't want to have is the appearance of being "handled" by anyone. As with any new administration, the first few months have been given a sort of "pass" by the press, though some argue the Obama administration has been treated exceptionally by the press due to the fact that most of the press agrees with Obama ideologically.
I don't know specifically about whether this type of press conference has always been the norm in the White House, but Helen Thomas has been covering the president since Kennedy, so if she's objecting (rather strongly, I would say) then one could make the case that this is an unusually controlling administration.
So has Helen Thomas not objected before in her career, or is this something she does every once in a while? Alcon mentioned that she is known as a notoriously tough questioner. Has she said that the current administration is more controlling than previous ones?
Also is the process of pre-screening questions something that has not happened during previous administrations? If I understood Alcon correctly, he explained that this is a common process, and the pre-screened questions are answered in the beginning of the conference, after which more spontaneous questions are being answered.
Does the Obama administration refuse to answer such, more spontaneous questions, if they are harder in nature?
I'm just trying to figure out whether this is all just politics as usual, which it seems to be, or whether it really is some turn for the worse.
Of course it would be nice if the current administration would be more open than the previous ones, but these press conferences are not critical in that sense, IMHO. I think that any administration needs sometimes to temporarily withhold information to get the job done properly.
Then there is of course the fact that there are issues they want to address to press, so they pick questions which allow them to address those things.
So I don't really see what all the fuss is about here, unless the Obama administration indeed has for the last few months been considerably more secretive in press conferences than your typical American administration.
[ July 06, 2009, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: ... but it doesn't look to me like they're are controlling it much more than is usual for this sort of political event.
Actually, the Daily Show of all places did a pretty good comparison of Bush-era "town halls" and questioning that Blair had to face in Britain in a similar format (albeit without the control). The difference was quite striking.
Of course, while it is true that this level of control is as usual in the States, it seems much more hypocritical in light of one of Obama's election themes (and his administration's claims) to be more open and transparent.
In aggregate, when you consider other incidents like the continuing of warrant-less wiretapping or the blocking of British attempts to investigate torture, it doesn't bode well ...
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: ... but it doesn't look to me like they're are controlling it much more than is usual for this sort of political event.
Actually, the Daily Show of all places did a pretty good comparison of Bush-era "town halls" and questioning that Blair had to face in Britain in a similar format (albeit without the control). The difference was quite striking.
Of course, while it is true that this level of control is as usual in the States, it seems much more hypocritical in light of one of Obama's election themes (and his administration's claims) to be more open and transparent.
In aggregate, when you consider other incidents like the continuing of warrant-less wiretapping or the blocking of British attempts to investigate torture, it doesn't bode well ...
I can agree with this. Holding previous standards isn't good if you made promises to break them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It seems pretty silly to argue against the process in this case. Like Teshi said, as a matter of process, how else would they do it than by wading through the questions to pick them?
What's their alternative?
To me, they'd have better footing by waiting for the questions and then choosing to take issue with them if they suck, rather than throwing what looks like a useless hissy fit when there's no better alternative being offered.
Let's look at the real comparison here: When Bush had "town halls" the people had to sign legal agreements before they were allowed in, they were screened, and the questions were filtered.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I second the "reporters whining" comment. There are press conferences where reporters get to ask questions on the fly; this event is in a different format, which was announced beforehand. If you don't want to attend in that format, you don't have to.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
They should have taken all the questions. There couldn't have been more than a few million. Need to be sure all the duplicate questions, and questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand are covered, too. Can't leave those out.
Make sure the ones with only the barest grasp of the english language are read without editing, too. If it's wholly incomprehensible... we'll get through it somehow.[/tongue in cheek]
*Of course* there will be some screening of questions. That's obvious. Taking issue with the fact that questions are screened is somewhat sophomoric, I think.
Now, if they wanted to question *how* the questions were prescreened - that only certain types of questions were allowed, that no questions were taken on a specific topic, etc - then that's something to dig into. But, of course, there's no way to do that until *afterwards*.
Seems like a pretty silly interview, to me. Lots of noise, no real substance.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I'm ignorant on this issue - Hopefully I understood the controversy correctly. A couple of questions:
Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
This is supposedly a town hall meeting. Except that it isn't. It's a press conference. Calling it a town hall meeting gives the impression that questions may be freely asked, but that's not the case.
And the transcript really doesn't do Gibbs' smarminess justice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: By the way, way to continue the spin Lisa, but I shouldn't expect anything more than that from you.
Way to justify anything the Obama administration does.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's look at the real comparison here: When Bush had "town halls" the people had to sign legal agreements before they were allowed in, they were screened, and the questions were filtered.
Bush didn't promise openness and transparency. So basically, that was all a lie? Obama never intended to be any more open than Bush? Would have been nice had he mentioned that during the campaign.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I'm ignorant on this issue - Hopefully I understood the controversy correctly. A couple of questions:
Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
This is supposedly a town hall meeting. Except that it isn't. It's a press conference. Calling it a town hall meeting gives the impression that questions may be freely asked, but that's not the case.
So the issue is with the term "town hall meeting"? Somebody apparently just chose a bad wording to describe a situation where normal people were allowed to send in questions through internet.
It's also worth noting that the press conference you have given links to is basicly a "town hall meeting", where all questions are being asked, and those questions are not pre-checked. Sure, the questions are being done by reporters, and not by the public, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of censorship.
[ July 06, 2009, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I second the "reporters whining" comment. There are press conferences where reporters get to ask questions on the fly; this event is in a different format, which was announced beforehand. If you don't want to attend in that format, you don't have to.
That does not seem to be the issue at hand. If you listen to the full recording, the reporters are quite explicit that they do not want to participate either way. For better or for worse, they don't feel that they are regular members of the public and didn't intend on attending the town hall meeting either way.
Their complaint is about the fact that the White House is taking questions via social media and then selecting the questions that they wish to answer, portraying that as a "town hall."
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... What's their alternative?
Ummm, I thought that would have been obvious. The British simply allow people to come in, raise their hands, and ask questions unfiltered. I see no reason why Americans cannot meet that standard.
(Unless you're coming around to my view that there is something inherently uncivilized about Americans )
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:This is supposedly a town hall meeting. Except that it isn't. It's a press conference. Calling it a town hall meeting gives the impression that questions may be freely asked, but that's not the case.
Did you miss all the bits about millions of questions, and bad questions? Yes there needs to be some screening. Wait and see what questions they choose to be asked, and if you feel they were poorly chosen to be softball questions go after them for that.
quote:And the transcript really doesn't do Gibbs' smarminess justice.
Cut the man some slack. You'd have a bad moment or two if you had to be in front of that bunch nearly every day.
quote:quote: Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's look at the real comparison here: When Bush had "town halls" the people had to sign legal agreements before they were allowed in, they were screened, and the questions were filtered. Bush didn't promise openness and transparency. So basically, that was all a lie? Obama never intended to be any more open than Bush? Would have been nice had he mentioned that during the campaign.
This is openness and transparency by comparison to many, many presidents of the past. By presidential standards in general Obama has done an amazing job of communicating with the public early and often. So he still needs some screening of questions at a town hall - duh. For the reasons previously mentioned, there's always gonna have to be some screening.
quote:quote: Originally posted by Alcon: By the way, way to continue the spin Lisa, but I shouldn't expect anything more than that from you. Way to justify anything the Obama administration does.
Way to try and cast everything he does in a "holy frack, it's the end of the world" kind of light.
I've never had a problem with your politics Lisa, I'm happy to chronically disagree with you. What I've always had a problem with, and continue to have a problem with is your tone. The way you spin everything.
You're worse than Fox News. Rather than having a good faith discussion on the issues with those who disagree with you, you post in a way that makes them the great fascist enemy and you the poor repressed person who just desperately wants your god given freedom.
If you would, please, drop the spin, drop the hyperbole, drop the "everyone who disagrees with you is as good as a neo-NAZI, fascist, oppressive tyrant" attitude and come to the discussion with an open mind, I would be more than happy to discuss with you - sans snark.
And yes, I agree with Obama on many, many things. And on the things I don't immediately agree with him, I trust that he is acting in good faith and to the best of his abilities. I trust him to defend my interests to the best ability allowed by the legislative process of the country and the state of the world. And I am going to hang to my hope that he is a general good, intelligent person who is doing the best anybody could right now until the evidence really starts to pile up otherwise.
If you'd like to start a thread of evidence you feel indicates otherwise - and do it with out the spin, the bias and the hyperbole - I would happy to consider it and discuss with you why I think he's doing certain things and why I'm okay with it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I'm ignorant on this issue - Hopefully I understood the controversy correctly. A couple of questions:
Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
This is supposedly a town hall meeting. Except that it isn't. It's a press conference. Calling it a town hall meeting gives the impression that questions may be freely asked, but that's not the case.
And the transcript really doesn't do Gibbs' smarminess justice.
THAT wasn't suppose to be a town meeting, Lisa...speaking of spin.
It WAS a press conference ABOUT a meeting....and the actual PUBLIC got to ask questions of the President during that meeting. While it isn't exactly completely open, it sure the hell isn't what you are claiming it was.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I'm ignorant on this issue - Hopefully I understood the controversy correctly. A couple of questions:
Is doing a press conference with a group of pre-selected reporters something that presidents tend to do in America, or is it only Obama?
Also, is this how Obama always handles press conferences, or is this more of an exception? Is he the first president to do such thing?
This is supposedly a town hall meeting. Except that it isn't. It's a press conference. Calling it a town hall meeting gives the impression that questions may be freely asked, but that's not the case.
And the transcript really doesn't do Gibbs' smarminess justice.
THAT wasn't suppose to be a town meeting, Lisa...speaking of spin.
It WAS a press conference ABOUT a meeting....and the actual PUBLIC got to ask questions of the President during that meeting. While it isn't exactly completely open, it sure the hell isn't what you are claiming it was.
To continue your point, the press conference in fact wasn't even related to the meeting. It was a standard free-form conference and a reporter decided to bring the "town hall" meeting up, because it had happened earlier that morning.
It seems to me that Gibbs wasn't even aware of how the people submitting questions in the town hall meeting were chosen (probably not on top of his priorities), so the reporter got him off guard.
Seems like much ado about nothing.
[ July 06, 2009, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I interned for my local Congresswoman one summer, and while I was there I helped run several town hall meetings. We would pass out question cards to all attendees, and then collect the cards as they finished writing questions. Rules were simple: -every- card had to be collected and kept, no matter the content. In fact, we weren't even allowed to look at the card before handing it to the Congresswoman. Questions were addressed in the order turned in. And all cards not answered by the Congresswoman during the meeting were brought back to the office and answered via correspondence.
I'm not actually convinced that's the best method of running a town hall meeting. A lot of good questions had to be handled in private correspondence, while a lot of redundant or incoherent ones got addressed in public. And first come, first served is definitely biased in terms of faster writers--plus it makes it very hard to do follow-up questions. But it's not -impossible- to run a meeting this way. In fact, it's pretty easy.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
The youtube link of the press conference was posted on 1th of July. Here is a link to "online town hall" that was held on the same day, so this is probably the one we are talking about. This is a pretty nice text, because it's basicly a live countdown of everything that happened. They've also included a link to GOP commentary of the event:
Apparently Obama had a live audience at the Northern Virginia Community College, and they were allowed to ask questions in traditional "town hall meeting" style.
Along with that, Obama answered questions from a Facebook noticeboard specifically put up for the event, and from video-questions posted at youtube (and maybe from Twitter, I didn't notice it being mentioned).
I guess I should mention that some of the questions were critical.
Frankly, it seems obvious to me that the youtube and twitter videos would be pre-checked, as someone might just put up a video of dogs screwing as a "question".
When it comes to a Facebook noticeboard, same process applies for a simple reason: When people ask questions in a real town hall meeting, they try to behave, because they don't want the whole world to think they are morons. But since in Facebook you can create an anonymous account, people just write whatever random crap that comes to their minds. They are not being held responsible for being morons. Just like in most message boards. We all know the general quality of political discussion on internet - Do we really want our presidents to go to that level? Wouldn't it be basically a waste of time for everyone involved?
After reading what the actual event was all about, I can't really see any reason for bickering here.
[ July 06, 2009, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Trying to figure out how we do "town-hall" meetings in Canada.
It seems that this is an on-going controversy here too, but open town-hall meetings have been done.
quote:Tonight at a rally of around 150 people in Winnipeg, Dion accused Stephen Harper of hiding from real Canadians.
Dion highlighted how, unlike his opponent, he has been holding open town hall meetings across the country, taking all questions from anyone without a safety net. He said Harper just can't do it, "he can't stand talking to people who don't share his right-wing opinions."
On the other hand, Dion lost the election so one could be tempted to say it might be politically unwise for Obama to hold an open town-hall. But that doesn't stop us from recognizing that he in fact isn't.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't think that how Obama picks the reporters in attendance at his press conferences is truly indicative of how open or transparent his administration is.
Well, this was in response to Obama's Healthcare reform townhall meeting in Annandale and not a press conference. What has Thomas so upset is the number of plants in the audience that he called upon. Washington Post
quote: Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job. The president hugged her - she's a volunteer for his political operation - and called her "exhibit A" in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.
This could be a touching moment for Obama...except
quote: Smith, of Appalachia, Va., is a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama's political operation within the Democratic National Committee. She obtained her ticket through the White House.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Apparently Obama had a live audience at the Northern Virginia Community College, and they were allowed to ask questions in traditional "town hall meeting" style.
The audience wasn't allowed to ask questions. Certain people, Obama supporters only, were allowed to ask questions. Another quote from Helen Thomas about the Townhall meeting:
quote: “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: I don't think that how Obama picks the reporters in attendance at his press conferences is truly indicative of how open or transparent his administration is.
Well, this was in response to Obama's Healthcare reform townhall meeting in Annandale and not a press conference. What has Thomas so upset is the number of plants in the audience that he called upon.
Just for a record, the video is from a White House press briefing, which deals with pretty much any topic the reporters want to ask about. I didn't watch the 45 minute video in its entirety, but what I did watch, it covers a lot of topics that have nothing to do with healthcare.
I just wanted to make this clear, as it seems to me many are confused about what videomaterial we are exactly watching and quoting.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Apparently Obama had a live audience at the Northern Virginia Community College, and they were allowed to ask questions in traditional "town hall meeting" style.
The audience wasn't allowed to ask questions. Certain people, Obama supporters only, were allowed to ask questions.
I thought all the people in the audience were Obama supporters?
How does this differ from "town hall meetings" done by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum, who have a pre-selected audience of supporters to ask questions?
Or are you implying that every person who was asking a question was a plant asking a planted question?
[ July 06, 2009, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Lisa, Obama's failure to implement the kind of transparency he promised is incredibly disheartening, but I you didn't pick an example that really demonstrates it.
Glen Greenwald had a good column on the subject back in June that you might be interested in.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
90% of people are stupid so if you let a proper sample of the people into a townhall to ask questions 90% of them are pillocks and 90% of the questions asked will be retarded questions like "why are you a secret Muslem communist who pals around with terrorists?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... What's their alternative?
Ummm, I thought that would have been obvious. The British simply allow people to come in, raise their hands, and ask questions unfiltered. I see no reason why Americans cannot meet that standard.
(Unless you're coming around to my view that there is something inherently uncivilized about Americans )
I want to say it was McCain who actually suggested that the president go before the Congress in much the same way that the Prime Minister goes before the House of Commons and answers blunt, point blank questions, and I have to say, though I somewhat doubted his sincerity, I think it was one of the best ideas of the campaign. I would LOVE it if American presidents would do that, not just for the entertainment value, but because I think direct conflict with criticism is something this country sorely needs.
Look at how criticism is leveled for the most part on this country. Republicans foam at Dems, Dems foam at Republicans, but they do it through the press. They do it in such a manner that either ensures that the charges will never be addressed, or puts the onus on the media to address them and then redirect the charges to the appropriate party, like a huge political switchboard.
If everyone was locked in a room and told to sort it out, I think things would be demonstrably different. But neither side wants to do that because no one actually wants to be called out on anything. It's an awful way to run a country, especially one that champions itself the way we do.
Actually forcing people to defend what they say, and god forbid, provide some sort of evidence or proof to back it up, would make not only political discourse better, but legislation, I think. So yes, I'd love to see that happen.
Short of Obama hosting a national radio call in show, I'm not sure how that works with random people though. Though the more I think about it...I'm liking the idea of a White House call in radio show...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Radio call in shows screen their calls. Haven't you ever seen Frasier? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's look at the real comparison here: When Bush had "town halls" the people had to sign legal agreements before they were allowed in, they were screened, and the questions were filtered.
Bush didn't promise openness and transparency. So basically, that was all a lie? Obama never intended to be any more open than Bush? Would have been nice had he mentioned that during the campaign.
Oh come now. First off, let's not pretend the two are the same. If you really think that's the case, I don't see how we can go any further in this discussion. Obama isn't even in the same neighborhood as Bush's stonewalling. Not even close. He might get there someday, but not yet.
Second, if we can agree that Bush was far worse, are you really more upset with the guy who promised 100% openness and only delivered maybe half, than with the guy who promised nothing, and then met his low bar?
Honestly, I'm disappointed with the lack of transparency, but I'm hopeful that it'll get better, and I appreciate that it's better than what we had.
Can we at least agree on that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Radio call in shows screen their calls. Haven't you ever seen Frasier?
Do you think Obama can get Peri Gilpin?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
He probably can't afford her.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow, if the federal government can't outspend ABC Family, we're in more trouble than I thought.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're kidding, right? Really successful actors make considerably more than the President does. At least in terms of his salary.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Have to settle for Kal Penn instead...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You're kidding, right? Really successful actors make considerably more than the President does. At least in terms of his salary.
Oh, I just meant that I can't imagine ABC Family is paying her anything close to Frasier money.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's look at the real comparison here: When Bush had "town halls" the people had to sign legal agreements before they were allowed in, they were screened, and the questions were filtered.
Bush didn't promise openness and transparency. So basically, that was all a lie? Obama never intended to be any more open than Bush? Would have been nice had he mentioned that during the campaign.
Let's ask a real simple question:
Do you believe that the transparency of the Obama administration is in any way equivalent to the transparency of the Bush administration?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Or are you implying that every person who was asking a question was a plant asking a planted question?
I'm not implying it, I am stating it. The poeple in the audience who asked questions were preselected by the White House to ask specific questions, or in Ms. Smith's case to cry on cue. Obama needs to play on fear and urgency to get his bills through Congress NOW before anyone has a chance to read them.
quote: Do you believe that the transparency of the Obama administration is in any way equivalent to the transparency of the Bush administration?
The Obama administration has gone out of its way to make promises (5 day online review of all bills, no lobbyists, no earmarks, and on and on) but so far it has broken all of those promises of transparency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The Obama administration has gone out of its way to make promises (5 day online review of all bills, no lobbyists, no earmarks, and on and on) but so far it has broken all of those promises of transparency.
Uh huh.
What I like about this statement is that because you used the absolute "all," I only need to provide one example to show that what you are saying is false.
This is ignoring the part where I can ask you to tell me where Obama promised "no lobbyists, no earmarks" and you would most likely be unable to find them.
quote:On his first day in office, Obama fulfilled a promise to roll back some Bush administration restrictions on presidential records. He signed an executive order that restored a 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records before they are released. It also eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews.
In terms of transparency issues, the only promise that the administration has explicitly broken was the five-day public review for bills. Everything else, including the establishment of a national declassification center, increased protection for whistleblowers, provider report measures, and establishment of independent review institutes (such as an independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations) are only falsely described as being broken promises.
If you have news sources that describe them as being broken promises (and you do), you should endeavor to find new ones that are less likely to err in their partial review of the president.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
google Obama Meter to get a sense of how many promises are being broken vs kept (I have no idea what the "normal" presidential ratio of broken to kept promises is so I don't know if he's doing good or bad. Then again, I disliked most of Bush's "promises" so I'd have rather seen him not keep them in the first place).
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Or are you implying that every person who was asking a question was a plant asking a planted question?
I'm not implying it, I am stating it. The poeple in the audience who asked questions were preselected by the White House to ask specific questions, or in Ms. Smith's case to cry on cue.
Bold statement. The proof?
[ July 07, 2009, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Bold statement. The proof?
I posted about Deb Smith earlier in this thread.
quote: Some of Obama's questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
A politician "breaking" his "promises" is nothing new. I'm not defending this behavior, but I'm not shocked by it.
As for Parliamentry Question Period, as useful as it is, it is a tremendously uncivilized time in which members of parliament act like pre-schoolers. It's not question-answer, it's yelling and booing over people as they give their answers. I doubt that very much productive work is accomplished and theoretically you can watch it on tv or the internet if you feel like you can get through it without stabbing out your eyes and ears in embarrassment.
For example. It's easier to hear the background noise when they're speaking in English.
I do think American presidents-- all American presidents-- have it pretty easy. They never face this kind of uncontrolled pre-schoolerishness.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: This is ignoring the part where I can ask you to tell me where Obama promised "no lobbyists, no earmarks" and you would most likely be unable to find them.
quote: "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."
Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.
quote: CNN: Obama Appoints Goldman Sachs Lobbyist to Top Treasury Post
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: the only promise that the administration has explicitly broken was the five-day public review for bills.
What I like about this statement is that because you used the absolute "only," I only need to provide one example to show that what you are saying is false. Prisoner Photos
quote: President Obama said Wednesday he told government lawyers to object to a court-ordered release of additional images showing alleged abuse of detainees because the release could affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion."
I already posted about the lobbyists
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: the only promise that the administration has explicitly broken was the five-day public review for bills.
What I like about this statement is that because you used the absolute "only," I only need to provide one example to show that what you are saying is false. Prisoner Photos
quote: President Obama said Wednesday he told government lawyers to object to a court-ordered release of additional images showing alleged abuse of detainees because the release could affect the safety of U.S. troops and "inflame anti-American opinion."
I already posted about the lobbyists
There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs. You're engineering a trap for yourself by providing a counterpoint which doesn't actually involve nor contradict what I said. He didn't promise to release these photographs. If you want help with understanding my point, such as the usage of the word 'explicit,' you could ask.
There's also the part you cut off of the front of my sentence, which was to state that in terms of transparency issues, there was only one promise broken so far. You omitted that so you could talk about lobbyists instead.
So yes, if you could find one example, you could prove me wrong, as I proved you wrong.
This isn't it.
Keep digging, if you wish.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Bold statement. The proof?
I posted about Deb Smith earlier in this thread.
quote: Some of Obama's questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
That simply proves that Smith was invited, and that the audience was made of supporters.
I don't think anyone has denied either, and according to what others have said in this thread, these kind of town hall meetings with an audience made of only supporters, are fairly normal in American politics.
What I specifically asked you to prove was your comment that all the questions were planted questions by planted people, who would even "cry on cue", according to a carefully orchestrated plan by the Obama administration.
So, what's your proof?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs.
Ah, so in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue? To quote the ACLU:
quote: Obama's decision "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability, ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.
"Essentially, by withholding these photographs from public view, the Obama administration is making itself complicit in the Bush administration's torture policies," Singh said.
"The release of these photos is absolutely essential for ensuring that justice [is] done, for ensuring that the public [can] hold its government accountable, and for ensuring that torture is not conducted in the future in the name of the American people."
I am sure you are simply going defend Obama by saying making a mockery of a promise isn't breaking it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: As for Parliamentry Question Period, as useful as it is, it is a tremendously uncivilized time in which members of parliament act like pre-schoolers. It's not question-answer, it's yelling and booing over people as they give their answers. I doubt that very much productive work is accomplished and theoretically you can watch it on tv or the internet if you feel like you can get through it without stabbing out your eyes and ears in embarrassment.
For example. It's easier to hear the background noise when they're speaking in English.
Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.
(Of course this whole thing is a tangent. I think Lyrhawn translated my call for "town-halls" to be truly open to members of the public into this form of Q&A session which is kind of a separate issue)
Anyways, I see that as a pretty standard ebb and flow in a political debate and if anything I think the whole thing is *too* ritualized and too controlled rather than not enough.
True democratic struggle is strengthened, not weakened, by having the legislators bring their true feelings and venom into play directly against each other rather than voice them through non-critical media mouth-pieces.
And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you really think that's the case, I don't see how we can go any further in this discussion. Obama isn't even in the same neighborhood as Bush's stonewalling.
Depends on your definition of "neighbourhood." Looking at the column posted by Noemon from what I thought was a fairly sympathetic-to-Obama writer before the inauguration, he lists by my rough count 14 incidents where Obama sided with pretty controversial Bush-era policies and 3 where he deviated.
In addition they note:
quote:"Finally, it's worth emphasizing that the above excerpts pertain only to transparency issues. None of this has anything to do with what The New York Times in May -- referring to Obama's Bush-replicating policies on detention, rendition, denial of habeas rights, military commission and the like -- described as "how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office." No matter how you look at it, this is quite a record."
So I think there is certainly room for a rational person to conclude that Obama is definitely in the same neighbourhood as Bush.
quote: Second, if we can agree that Bush was far worse, are you really more upset with the guy who promised 100% openness and only delivered maybe half, than with the guy who promised nothing, and then met his low bar?
More upset? Again, it depends.
See, Bush was a known quantity and a laughing stock around the world. Everyone knew he and his government was usually lying which in an odd way limits the damage.
But Obama was elected on a promise of real change while in practise only delivering minimal change. This I fear is even more dangerous in some aspects by causing people to lower their guard. Thats why I feel exercises like that column are very important.
On a personal level, it could feel more like a betrayal rather than in the case of Bush, simply moves by an adversary. So again, the level of "upset" depends.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I went to a townhall meeting fairly recently that my local congressman held. It wasn't filled with only supporters. In fact, I'd say that over half the audience was filled with the opposing party. To the congressman's credit, he fielded questions from anyone, though he did request they go with topics of his choosing. The way he chose his topics was by doing a similar process described earlier where he had all of the attendees write their question on a card and turn them in to start with. The staffers then tallied the questions and figured out which were the most asked questions and used that as the topic list.
All of that being said, I don't mind if a townhall is pre-screened. In the townhall I attended, audience members started arguing with each other over the premise of some of the questions. There were a few times staffers had to come in and try to cool down folks before things got too heated. While this resulted in a highly entertaining environment to be a part of, it wasn't conducive to learning. People separated into their sides on an issue and asked repetitive questions to simply egg on the opposition in the audience. Pre-screening the questions allows you to make sure you cover many issues that people are wondering about because you make sure that different questions are asked. From what I saw of the President's townhall, they were doing a pretty good job asking questions I wondered about. (I would have watched all of it, but it was competing with a show I wanted to check out. I figured I could just watch the rest later. )
I'm in the camp of folks who think that the reporters were just whining about a non-issue that does not reflect upon this administration's promises of transparency and accountability.
With that, however, I am disappointed with quite a few of the decisions this administration has made with regard to transparency and accountability. I really did want that five-day waiting period. But I will say that in spite of my grievances, I'm still very satisfied with this administration on the whole.
ETA: With the photos, I'd prefer if they were released, but I actually buy the administration's arguments that releasing the photos would just create a security risk for the folks serving overseas. It's no secret that we abused prisoners. We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.
[ July 07, 2009, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that "town hall" is a silly name for the type of events we are discussing. The type of meeting that would be doable and potentially useful for a town is not useful for something as large as the whole US.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: This is true. Unfortunately, it is the term that the administration has used and the reporters have agreed to use. We could call them "highly orchestrated Q&A sessions designed to give the impression of being in touch with the common man" but that would seem to be harder to promote.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.
I think The Rabbit put it best in a different thread.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The value of Nuremberg to Germany was that it made public all the secrets of the Nazi regime. By putting all the "classified" crimes on public trial, Nuremberg made possible German introspection about the war and about the culpability of individuals. The data presented at Nuremberg laid the foundation for public discussion that continues today and has resulted in a major cultural and ethical shift in Germany.
Hitler was able to do what he did in part because he controlled the flow of information. Nuremberg opened all those secrets to public scrutiny.
A trial would be an opportunity for public discourse about what really happened and whether it was justified or unjustified. That discourse is a necessary part of ethical progress.
The converse is also true. If the US never opens up the data on these crimes and gives the impression that they're just sweeping the crimes under the carpet while punishing a few scapegoats, it will happen again.
The public aspect is essential. Americans wouldn't have been satisfied if Germans claimed to have handled it on their own behind closed doors, and neither should we now.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: There is no explicit promise that Obama has explicitly broken by not releasing these photographs.
Ah, so in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue? To quote the ACLU:
quote: Obama's decision "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability, ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said.
"Essentially, by withholding these photographs from public view, the Obama administration is making itself complicit in the Bush administration's torture policies," Singh said.
"The release of these photos is absolutely essential for ensuring that justice [is] done, for ensuring that the public [can] hold its government accountable, and for ensuring that torture is not conducted in the future in the name of the American people."
I am sure you are simply going defend Obama by saying making a mockery of a promise isn't breaking it.
Just because Singh says that the Obama administration is "making a mockery", it doesn't make it factual that they are in fact making a mockery. That was just one man's opinion, but you are using it as some universal, undeniable fact.
If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration, it still doesn't mean that he has promised that the goverment would never again hold any secrets from the public. Of course any government is going to have some secrets. For example they often can't give information concerning on-going military projects, because giving that information to the American public would also mean giving the same information to the potential enemies of the American public.
Anyway, you can't claim that Obama broke a promise, if he never made that promise in the first place.
This is not to say that Obama hasn't broken any promises (he has), but so far you haven't given any proof that he broke any promises with this issue.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am torn on the photo issue. From what I have heard about the photos not shown, if I were the victim, I would not want them public. I would want a trial to be held, but I would want the pictures limited to judge, jury, prosecutor and defender. Americans often have trials were not all evidence is open to the public. In rape trials, the media routinely does not disclose the victim's name. Many crime scene photos are also withheld. The problem is, people are not being tried for these crimes. Justice is not being done. And showing those pictures may be what it takes to outrage America enough to ensure justice is done.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: in other words Obama can just simply say 'open and transparent' and then deny anything he wants because he never explicitly said he was going to be open and transparent on any single particular very specific issue?
I love it when people preface a complete strawman with "In other words,"
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: kmbboots: This is true. Unfortunately, it is the term that the administration has used and the reporters have agreed to use. We could call them "highly orchestrated Q&A sessions designed to give the impression of being in touch with the common man" but that would seem to be harder to promote.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... We already know we did some horrible things, what more would actually seeing the abuse get us? As long as the administration holds itself accountable and fittingly punishes the ones who perpetuated the abuse, I'd be all right with keeping the photos classified. I would, however, like some form of verification that the administration really did find fitting punishments for the abuse. That would satisfy my desire for accountability.
I think The Rabbit put it best in a different thread.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The value of Nuremberg to Germany was that it made public all the secrets of the Nazi regime. By putting all the "classified" crimes on public trial, Nuremberg made possible German introspection about the war and about the culpability of individuals. The data presented at Nuremberg laid the foundation for public discussion that continues today and has resulted in a major cultural and ethical shift in Germany.
Hitler was able to do what he did in part because he controlled the flow of information. Nuremberg opened all those secrets to public scrutiny.
A trial would be an opportunity for public discourse about what really happened and whether it was justified or unjustified. That discourse is a necessary part of ethical progress.
The converse is also true. If the US never opens up the data on these crimes and gives the impression that they're just sweeping the crimes under the carpet while punishing a few scapegoats, it will happen again.
The public aspect is essential. Americans wouldn't have been satisfied if Germans claimed to have handled it on their own behind closed doors, and neither should we now.
Generally I agree with what you are saying here, but a question:
In my understanding the official stand of the Obama administration is that they want to keep the material secret because it might help Al Qaida in its recruiting efforts?
It does sound like a fairly logical reason to me, even if it might not be the actual reason, or the primary reason.
Has there been any talk about releasing the material later, maybe 5-10 years from now? I would imagine that the effectiveness of the photos & video footage as a recruiting material could be lesser then, but arguably Americans would still have the same benefit of introspection, a la Nuremberg.
To me that would sound like a good compromise.
Also, the actual trials and punishments could be done behind closed doors, so I don't think the release of the material to the public has to necessarily happen at the same time.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration,
Has he? or has he continued the same policies?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem is, people are not being tried for these crimes. Justice is not being done. And showing those pictures may be what it takes to outrage America enough to ensure justice is done.
Exactly. And that is why I would prefer they be released. My point is that as long as justice is carried out, I'd be all right with keeping the photos from the public because I buy the argument of their dangerous nature. I think that would hold the administration accountable, but the problem is that they aren't doing that.
I do also think that the Nuremburg comparison is fairly applicable, but not completely. Nuremburg was done in retrospect, we're talking about an operation that is ongoing. I'm not convinced that it is an appropriate environment to release those photos when you consider that we are still operating overseas. I want us to change the course and never perpetuate abuses like that again. I want the people who committed the crimes to receive their punishment. But I don't think we should endanger people didn't commit the crime by releasing the photos while they're overseas.
ETA: In looking over my post, it becomes clear to me how torn I am on the issue. I want justice to be taken, yet there hasn't been justice so I want the photos released so we're forced to take action. At the same time, releasing them could very well hurt people who aren't responsible for the photos' content. And that doesn't bode well with me. It's a difficult issue that I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: If Obama has promised greater transparency and accountability and has delivered exactly that, when compared to the Bush administration,
Has he? or has he continued the same policies?
I have to admit I don't know. Some in this thread have said that he has established a different policy, but I don't know if there is any actual proof to back up a noticeable change.
The Salon link mentioned the following:
"Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."
Samprimary also mentioned:
"On his first day in office, Obama fulfilled a promise to roll back some Bush administration restrictions on presidential records."
I admit that to my ears those don't exactly sound impressive, although I admit I have no idea what the FOIA order means in practice. I'm sure someone else in this thread is better capable of providing examples of transparency change, if there are any.
Now, if Obama indeed has failed to change the transparency in any meaningful way when compared to the previous administration, then it can be said that he has broken his promise.
Does anyone know whether one can find an all-inclusive list about the transparency decisions of the Obama administration somewhere? I did some googling, but didn't really find one.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.
That's the first one I picked and listened a bit to wait to see if there was any jeering. It's not the worst I've heard by far. You're a Canadian, right? You must have listened to worse ones yourself.
quote:And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.
No, the idea is airing ideas and issues to the public, not actually accomplishing anything.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Hmmm, looking at the link, I don't know about you but I got the June 17, 2009 session and I gotta say, if thats the "worst" you can do thats pretty good already.
That's the first one I picked and listened a bit to wait to see if there was any jeering. It's not the worst I've heard by far. You're a Canadian, right? You must have listened to worse ones yourself.
quote:And while I agree that there is not much valuable "work" being done, I think that sort of misses the point of Question Period.
No, the idea is airing ideas and issues to the public, not actually accomplishing anything.
Parliament is like Congress but with a 2 drink minimum.
Seriously Ild swear half of the mp's were stonned drunk from what they pull at times.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."
Obama released four memos. Cheney asked for more memos showing the results to be released which Obama refused to do.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: "Obama complied with a court order directing the release of Bush-era OLC memos on torture; issued an Executive Order creating additional procedures before executive secrecy under FOIA could be asserted; and ordered his agency heads to interpret FOIA with a "presumption" in favor of disclosure."
Obama released four memos. Cheney asked for more memos showing the results to be released which Obama refused to do.
And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
However, when a President only releases selected memos, which cast the previous administration in a VERY bad light, while refusing to release any memos which may indicate there were mitigating circumstances influencing the previous administration's decisions, is that actually being "open and transparent"? Or is it politics as usual?
quote: Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
And Obama is? Incidentally, the Obama Administration has done nothing to cast any doubt on the existence of potentially vindicating memos; only that they won't release any further memos on the subject.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote: And does that change the fact that Obama did release those memos? Yes, he didn't release all memos, but apparently he did release more than the Bush administration did, which means he provided greater transparency on this issue than the previous administration.
However, when a President only releases selected memos, which cast the previous administration in a VERY bad light, while refusing to release any memos which may indicate there were mitigating circumstances influencing the previous administration's decisions, is that actually being "open and transparent"? Or is it politics as usual?
quote: Also, are we actually sure such memos exist? Cause Cheney is just oh so reliable and trustworthy.
And Obama is? Incidentally, the Obama Administration has done nothing to cast any doubt on the existence of potentially vindicating memos; only that they won't release any further memos on the subject.
Sen. Levin says that Cheney is wrong. I'm willing to trust Levin, if for no other reason, but because he looks trustworthy. Come on, how can you not trust a friendly looking man like that? Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
On the subject of transparency in general, I thought this might be a good place to put a couple of links for folks who want to see what's been goin' down lately.
USASpending.gov - I'm not going to falsely attribute this to President Obama. The creation of this website was demanded by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. (Though both Senator Obama and Senator McCain were sponsors of this legislation.) It has, however, been retooled since the Obama administration so that it is far more user-friendly than their older website FedSpending.gov. My biggest complaint is that the Department of Treasury Assistance spending hasn't been accounted for. I'm hoping I can throw a 'yet' to the end of the previous sentence, though.
Data.gov - This one has been created by the acts of the current administration. That being said, it's a lot less intuitive and (for me, anyway) useful than the spending website. Maybe it's because it's new and they're still building it. Either way, this website provides access to datasets of federal documents. So if you want to read federal papers or reports, eventually as this site grows it's the place to look.
I think that both of these websites are pretty nice steps toward accountability and transparency of government. I thought it might be nice to give some credit where credit is due.
P.S. Although I'm pretty sure it's been linked before a couple times, I think it'd be nice to link it again. Recovery.gov is still being updated and shows what has been happening with the stimulus package that was passed.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 90% of people are stupid so if you let a proper sample of the people into a townhall to ask questions 90% of them are pillocks and 90% of the questions asked will be retarded questions like "why are you a secret Muslem communist who pals around with terrorists?"
Blayne you are right on the money with this one, although it would make the town hall meeting a lot more interesting. I might actually watch!
I believe the media played a huge part in getting Obama elected, and as such I believe a lot of them expected some sort of special treatment in return. It is inevitable that you cannot please everyone, so some branches of the media will begin to play the whole "He got more than me" game. If they do not get what they want, they will simply start to report that there is "broken campaign promises."
It is an issue that every president is faced with. That being said, the person chosen to be Press Secretary should be someone that can answer questions effectively and quickly. Robert Gibbs, in my opinion, was a horrible choice. I have seen quite a few of the press conferences, and Mr. Gibbs just seems lost during every single one. It is a problem when the only thing I remember from a press conference is the number of times Robert Gibbs says "Uhhhhh." This gives the impression that he does not know what he is talking about. It gives the press reps such as the two in the transcript an easy target.
I don't believe that Gibbs will last long. I am sure he is a great guy, he is just not cut out for the job.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: One year into its promise of greater government transparency, the Obama administration is more often citing exceptions to the nation's open records law to withhold federal records even as the number of requests for information declines, according to a review by The Associated Press of agency audits about the Freedom of Information Act.
Among the most frequently cited reasons for keeping records secret: one that Obama specifically told agencies to stop using so frequently. The Freedom of Information Act exception, known as the "deliberative process" exemption, lets the government withhold records that describe its decision-making behind the scenes.
quote: The administration has stalled even over records about its own efforts to be more transparent. The AP is still waiting — after nearly three months — for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.
The White House on Tuesday described the directive as "historic," but the Office of Management and Budget still has not responded to AP's request under the Freedom of Information Act to review internal e-mails and other documents related to that effort.
quote: The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was so concerned about what he called "exemption creep" that last year he successfully pressed for a new law that requires exemptions to be "clear and unambiguous."
The federal government cited Exemption 3 protections to withhold information at least 14,442 times in the last budget year, compared with at least 13,599 in the previous one.
While not refuting AP's findings on the government's use of exemptions to withhold information, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the administration has made progress toward becoming more transparent.
"The majority of agencies — 12 out of the 17, or 70 percent of those surveyed — increased FOIA requests granted in full, in part or both," LaBolt said late Tuesday.
Much of the Obama administration's early effort seems to have been aimed at clearing out a backlog of old cases: The number of requests still waiting past deadlines spelled out in the open-records law fell from 124,019 in budget year 2008 to 67,764 at the end of the most recent budget year. There is no way to tell whether people whose cases were closed ultimately received the information they sought.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)