You seem to be expecting the interviewer to be a dormant party in an interview, how incredibly dull would interviews be if they were reduced to simply scripted question, answer, question answerquestionanswer ad infinitum. The job of an intelligent interviewer is to draw the hidden truths from the interviewee, the things they don't want to say. And if somebody was to walk out under questioning like you mentioned I would question if they have something to hide.
Nobody can deny bush has a lot to hide.
Rws you freely admit the president is not that smart, well I say call a spade a spade. If he's an idiot, treat him like one. If he can back himself up, then he makes the interviewer look like an idiot. In this case he did not. And does it not worry that a man you consider to be "not all that smart" is leading your nation? It scares the hell out of me that he's there.

Originally posted by mwm1331
4) the troubles are 30 years old?

That's when "powder barrel" was ignited and violence bursted out starting the "tradition" of people to go to shoot everyone who just happened to be in wrong street.

(and actually your government is using borrowed money to run your country... did you thought they would take money from their own pockets to fill deficit)

No muppet thats what YOU think the point of a political interview is. I think the point of a political interview is to give the viewer a deeper understanding of the subjects views and positions which can not be done in a 30 second awnser.

Politicians have plenty of time to give a deeper understanding of their views in their speeches. An interview is very different, there are two people involved. When a single man has done this much damage to the world, I want him to be asked some pretty tough questions and to answer them truthfully. Anybody can read excerpts from a speech, it takes intelligence to counter an intelligent question.

You know I just went back a re-read the transcript of the nterview in question to see if perhaps you had a point and from my reading of it you dont. I didnt see one instance of the president trying to evade a question what I did see was The President taking questions which were oversimplifications and trying to awnser them n a proper context.
for example
Q But, Mr. President, the world is a more dangerous place today. I don't know whether you can see that or not.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say that?

Q There are terrorist bombings every single day. It's now a daily event. It wasn't like that two years ago.

THE PRESIDENT: What was it like September the 11th, 2001? It was a -- there was a relative calm, we --

Me-All the President in my view was trying to do was to point out that the basic asssumption of her question, that the world wasn't like this two years ago, was incorrect.

or here
Q You're going to meet Bertie Ahern when you arrive in Shannon Airport tomorrow. I guess he went out on a limb for you, presumably because of the great friendship between our two countries. Can you look him in the eye when you get there and say, it will be worth it, it will work out?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. I wouldn't be doing this, I wouldn't have made the decisions I did if I didn't think the world would be better. Of course. I'm not going to put people in harm's way, our young, if I didn't think the world would be better. And --

Q Why is it that others --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish.

And so, yes, I can turn to my friend, Bertie Ahern, and say, thank you, thanks for helping, and I appreciate it very much. And there will be other challenges, by the way.

Here I can see no reason for the interuption, he was awnsering the question asked in as complete a manner as he could

or here
Q Is that something that really should start, though, with the solving of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, first of all, you've got a democracy in Turkey. And you've got a democracy emerging in Afghanistan. You've got a democracy in Pakistan. In other words --

Q But shouldn't that be on the top of the list --

THE PRESIDENT: Please. Please. Please, for a minute, okay. It'll be better if you let me finish my answers, and then you can follow up, if you don't mind.

What I'm telling you is democracy can emerge at the same time that a democracy can emerge in the Palestinian state. I'm the first American President to have called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, the first one to do so. Because I believe it is in the Palestinian people's interest; I believe it's in Israel's interest. And, yes, we're working. But we can do more than, you know, one thing at a time. And we are working on the road map with the Quartet, to advance the process down the road.

Me- Now I'm sorry but if you remove the breakins by the reporter it looks to me like this was a reasoned and intelligent awnser. her interruption and question implied tht the U.S. coulsd not wage war in Iraq while at the same time brokering a settlement and he pointed out quite correctly tht the U.S. CAN do more than one thing at a time.

Like Iraq, the Palestinian and the Israeli issue is going to require good security measures. And --

Q And a bit more even-handedness from America?

THE PRESIDENT: -- and we're working on security measures. And America -- I'm the first President to ever have called for a Palestinian state. That's, to me, sounds like a reasonable, balanced approach. But I will not allow terrorists to determine the fate -- as best I can, determine the fate of people who want to be free.

Here she breaks in for no other reason than to imply that American has not been a balanced broker

The fact that he went back to his train of thought after these interuptions to me just shows that he was focused on awnsering the question and would not allow some Irish twit to sidetrack him. Personally I thnk thats a good thing.
So no I still think this journalist was incompetant and should not be allowed to interview anyone more important tht the local garbage man

He wouldn't give a straight answer. He'd try to go off on some tiresome tangent and evade the question, the reporter was just trying to get him back on track and get a clear answer.

Originally posted by mwm1331
No muppet thats what YOU think the point of a political interview is. I think the point of a political interview is to give the viewer a deeper understanding of the subjects views and positions which can not be done in a 30 second awnser.

you're a lost cause mwm1331... I give up.

For the first question- That is not what she asked at all, she asked if the world was a more dangerous place, the answer, as his own administration has said is simply... Yes. He said the world is a different place, after much sputtering and trailing. That is not a satisfactory answer for me. I don’t see how that could be satisfactory for anyone, the world is a different place day to day. He has again, said nothing of substance.

In the second question he was stopped before he could launch in to his standard waffle, I’m pretty confident I heard those exact words mirrored in an interview with him in which he was asked if he could say that to Tony Blair, I’ll see if I can find a transcript for that. She was ready to move on before her 12 minutes were wasted by inconsequential wittering.

And for the third, please, She explicitly asks about the ongoing trouble between Israel and Palestine and his reply starts with “Well, I think, first of all, you've got a democracy in Turkey”… Where did that come from? That is blatantly dodging an issue that he clearly does not want to talk about. And his answer makes little or no sense anyway when taken in the context of his administration’s actions towards the Israel-Palestine conflict.

And finally, you say “Here she breaks in for no other reason than to imply that American has not been a balanced broker” This is something he needs to answer, America had not been a balanced broker, when was the first time you heard of Israel’s brutality towards the Palestinians? After Rachel Corrie’s death? And when then did you hear of the Palestinian suicide bombings? Long before and in much more detail, I’m sure. The fact is, the US supplies, to this day, arms for Israel. No such support exists for Palestine. There is evidence also that the Stress and Duress interrogation techniques used by the US were taught to them by Israel which is proud of it’s use of these methods.

And personally I think george w bush should be someone no more important than the local garbage man.

Where the hell do you get it that he wouldn't give a straight answer? Please cite an example from the interview. In fact most of her questions were ansered with a definet yes or definet no answer.

I, like most of you, thought the reporter asked some damn good questions. I just think that if such good questions are asked, we should be as interested in the answer. You people are reaching on this one. You're beginning to quote things you wish had happened in the interview. Everytime you say it, we just go back and read it and say, "where the hell did they get that". If we cannsot stick to the subject at hand and factually refer to the transcript of the interview, I will lock this thread. This forum isn't going to become the mockery made of the Mud Pit. This is not the Mud Pit and even the Mud Pit isn't the Mud Pit now because of crap like this.

Discuss, but discuss factually and leave your agendas outside!

Originally posted by Saorstait

In Ireland and the UK interviews like this with statesmen are not just commonplace, they are the expected norm. Carole Coleman was simply cutting through his b.s. rhetoric for several reasons -
1. Because he is simply trying to waste time and finish the interview without running out of script
2. Because she had valid questions the Irish people want answers to, and finally
3. We have heard it all before, he was saying absolutely nothing new, word for word the same as before. That your "journalists" are afraid to do this does not take away from Ms Coleman's legitimacy, in fact it lends extra legitimacy to her questions, which need to be asked by someone.

i'm an american and i agree with you 100%. the quality of journalism here, for whatever reason, seems to have suffered tremendously in the past years. i've lived in the uk for several years, and i've also lived in an asian police-state, and i have to say the quality of journalism over here sadly resembles the latter far more than the former. i've often wondered why this is so.

i believe that it has something to do with the fact that america is one of the few countries with no national news service. (NPR doesn't really count, since it's not government funded.) all it's media outlets depend on sponsorship to survive, and the sponsors generally wish to avoid controversy of any type, and could care less how this denegrates true journalism. the bbc (to use the obvious example) had it right- fixed guaranteed fees from taxes every year means it doesn't have to worry about whoring it's journalism out to sponsors. it can hit hard when it wants to without fear of financial loss.

your reasons are all well-stated and correct imho. bush's stalling is quite obvious and is a tactic used by all politicians.

like senator byrd, i weep for my country.

-koji K.

Astrocreep,

I hope you don't lock this thread. The most serious issue raised in the initial post (whether or not the poster intended it) is the difference in views as to what a political interview is about.

With respect it is hard to debate that with reference to a single interview. The bigger picture has to come into play. My agenda is the promotion of fair democracy, which relies on a fair, free media. If this is unacceptable to you, please let me know.

I thought it was disrespectful on the reporters part to keep on interupting Bush. Bush was the guest, so she should have respected him as one.

Originally posted by Saorstait
For the first question- That is not what she asked at all, she asked if the world was a more dangerous place, the answer, as his own administration has said is simply... Yes. He said the world is a different place, after much sputtering and trailing. That is not a satisfactory answer for me. I don’t see how that could be satisfactory for anyone, the world is a different place day to day. He has again, said nothing of substance.

Im sorry saorstait but thats incorrect, read the text again She STATED that the world was a more dangerous place and then asked IF he could see that. The president then proceeded to correct her assertion. Had he awnsered the question he was asked " can you see that" his only choices would have been to awnser either "Yes I can see that" (in other words your right)or "no I can not see that"(in other words i'm blind). Instead he chse to address the fact that he felt the world was not more dangerous than it was in 2001.
The very fact that he unlike, yourself was able to see that she was attempting to make him awnser a question for which there is no good awnser does, I think, prove that the President is capable of thinking on his feet.

And for the third, please, She explicitly asks about the ongoing trouble between Israel and Palestine and his reply starts with “Well, I think, first of all, you've got a democracy in Turkey”… Where did that come from? That is blatantly dodging an issue that he clearly does not want to talk about. And his answer makes little or no sense anyway when taken in the context of his administration’s actions towards the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Again thats incorrect what she asked was whether or not Isreal/palestine should be top priority (thereby impling either that it wasn't or that the U.S. is incapable of devoting attention to both situations. Neither of which ANY leader would admit to) and the president pointed out that both situations were priorities.
The fact is the woman continually asked questions designed in such a way that the president could not awnser them without looking bad and as such forced him to awnser the questions in a different manner than she wanted him to. Luckily the President was to smart to fall for it.

Originally posted by mwm1331
The very fact that he unlike, yourself was able to see that she was attempting to make him awnser a question for which there is no good awnser does, I think, prove that the President is capable of thinking on his feet.

I'm sorry, but I thought that we had reached a consensus a couple of pages ago that it was standard practice for the questions in political interviews to be presented to the subject in advance, and that their responses were pre-prepared. There may have been some divergence on the merits of this process, but that this is what goes on seemed to be accepted across the board. To then claim that one of his pre-prepared answers show that he can 'think on his feet' seems more than a little dubious.
And no, I do not agree with his argument that the situation was similar in 2001. There are more terrorist attacks now than there were then. The difference is scale. And if the terrorists are able to conduct their routine, small-scale attacks, and such vicious and audacious attacks as the Madrid bombing, then I do not believe that we can take it as a given that they could not conduct another large scale attack, such as the attack on the Trade Center. Instead, I feel that refering to the attacks of September 11 is a cynical way of disregarding the increase in terrorist attacks by reclaiming the position of victim, and playing on the sympathy for the US, and horror about the attack, which people rightly felt at the time. HOwever, we are not at that time any more, and it is the change which needed to be addressed.

Originally posted by Yog the Sloth
I'm sorry, but I thought that we had reached a consensus a couple of pages ago that it was standard practice for the questions in political interviews to be presented to the subject in advance, and that their responses were pre-prepared. There may have been some divergence on the merits of this process, but that this is what goes on seemed to be accepted across the board.

I've just re-read the thread and don't see the consensus you mention. Political interviews are just that. Interviews, not prompted speeches. That's the norm in most democracies.... although I concede that may not be the case in the US.

[EDIT. I agree with you about the cynical use of 911 though....]

.
--
On the other issue, as to whether or not Sir is a respectful enough term for a president, someone pointed out that they would address the Queen as "Your Majesty". That is correct in most formal sense, but in general you would address her as "Ma'am"... which a polite female equivalent of "Sir"..

If it's polite enough for the Queen, it's polite enough for Bush.

[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

Yes she interuppeted Bush, but why was it? because he either was going on about something off topic or was saying the same BS he has said before. She wanted real answers, the truth, which GWB can't give cause then he would be impeached and imprisoned.

Courtesy is given, respect earned. Little boy Bush has done nothing to gain my respect and done enough for me to revoke courtesy.

But more to the point, there is a huge difference between an interview and a staged show. Bush wants only the later of the two because he can neither think on his feet nor answer the questions honestly without exposing that he does have the ability to think in the first place. You don’t believe me? Here is an excerpt from my interview with Bush.

Jonna: Sir, what did you have for lunch today?

Bush: What? That wasn’t part of the deal! I can’t answer that.

Jonna: Please sir, it is a simple question.

Bush: Ummm…Steak! NO WAIT! It was chicken, chicken!

Jonna: So you had chicken?

Bush: That’s classified information. Do you have any crayons that I can color with? Daddy says that I am getting good at it!

Jonna, that was funny, no, hilarious! But do you really think Bush has gotten good at coloring inside the lines? Well, at least he stopped painting stop signs pink and stop lights black. Oh wait, that's how he saw them when he was driving drunk and stoned in Texas. Well, can't prove that cause all his driving records are somehow locked under a privacy act while the Patriot Act allows the government the right to go through your house without your knowledge.

Yog while I agree that the subject of the questions were preplanned, I do not know whether or not the exact wording was. From the little I know about the procedures in place I believe that reporters are required to submit a subject list, not the exact text of the questions they will ask. As I am sure you understand by changing a few words the question being asked can change substansially while still adhereing to the same subject.
It is my sense that the president did a very good job of avoiding "trick questions" which is I believe indicative of intelligence.

Originally posted by Saorstait

In Ireland and the UK interviews like this with statesmen are not just commonplace, they are the expected norm.

Same as Australia. Politicians and even the head of the country should be expecting this style of interviews.

I know it sounds rude, but sometimes it's the only way to get answers out of a politician. If you let them ponder on the question too long they'll do the old "answer your question without answering your question"