[daimoni]

.

[PacHead]

A real journalist ? Seems like a rude bugger. The idiot cut him off like 6 times. That's not being a journalist, that's being rude and incompetant.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
A real journalist ? Seems like a rude bugger. The idiot cut him off like 6 times. That's not being a journalist, that's being rude and incompetant.

The point of a journalist is to get the real info.

What your looking for is a press secretary. Bush has one. They make everything pretty, and the president always appears to be a clone of Jesus.


Journalists aren't supposed to sugar coat and lie to make people look good, they are supposed to go beyond that.

It's a shame more don't do it. It's pretty bogus how many phony politicians we have that get away with this type of stuff, and never get a real interview to show who they really are.

[daimoni]

.

[Atomic Rooster]

That's the kinda stuffs you get when you interview a moron.

[slow moe]

OK, let's fire all American journalists and get some new ones then.

I'm fine with that.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Who removed your hood and unclipped the electric nodes off your testicles... and allowed YOU to speak?

On your belly, ENEMY COMBATANT OF THE STATE!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

Yeah, the day you catch me running around a battlefield with an AK-47 in my hand, and pictures of osama in my wallet, and I'm screaming out some silly nonsense, while trying to kill you, then perhaps you'd have a point.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Who removed your hood and unclipped the electric nodes off your testicles... and allowed YOU to speak?

On your belly, ENEMY COMBATANT OF THE STATE!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

Wow, you're as bad as me.

(Bush should give more interviews.)

[daimoni]

.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by daimoni:
I'll make a point to never visit your shack in Montana, then.

Your secret is safe with me.

:: dials FBI ::

I'll take it you'll stay away from New York then also ?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by PacHead:
A real journalist ? Seems like a rude bugger. The idiot cut him off like 6 times. That's not being a journalist, that's being rude and incompetant.

Wow.

You have obviously never, ever seen/read/heard a truly competent journalist in action.

The job of a journalist (as opposed to a reporter) is to cut through all the ******** and hot air, getting to the salient information, and to see that his questions really are answered and the precious interview minutes not filled with empty blathering. That is a journalist's job.

-s*

[KaBlooey]

I think it was somewhere around 9/11/01 that the press went to sleep, at least in this country. At one of the most crucial turning points in US history, they have not been asking the questions they should of the current administration. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, I'll give ya two Aaron Brown's, a Brit Hume and a Greta Van Susteren (the new one, not the old one) for ONE journalist like that Irish reporter.

Geez, I never thought I'd miss Sam Donaldson.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
I think it was somewhere around 9/11/01 that the press went to sleep, at least in this country. At one of the most crucial turning points in US history, they have not been asking the questions they should of the current administration. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, I'll give ya two Aaron Brown's, a Brit Hume and a Greta Van Susteren (the new one, not the old one) for ONE journalist like that Irish reporter.

Geez, I never thought I'd miss Sam Donaldson.

Yep.

The media was pretty much told to close their eyes... and did a good job following that order.


Sad really. We used to have freedom of the press, and our media was responsible for keeping the people informed of what was going on in the government. Wasn't a bad concept.

[voyageur]

It's clear George W. Bush can't think his way out of a paper bag.
How reassuring that "his job is to do his job", and that he seems to think Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the Middle East.

[BlackGriffen]

He had his pre-canned, lawyer approved answers, and he'd be damned if he was going to let some low class reporter cut them short.

I admit I'd be pissed if someone was interrupting me, too, so I'd cut home some slack. I also have to admit that I stopped reading his empty answers after the first couple, so I'm not really sure how dumb he appears.

BlackGriffen

[Taliesin]

I saw a snippet of it on CNN or was it BBC, doesn't matter, but I just listened into when he dared to claim that Pakistan is a democracy, eventhough the army pushed and Musharaff is just a dictator, that was priceless, but then I got bored of the learned-by-heart-answers and quit the programme.

Taliesin

[eklipse]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Who removed your hood and unclipped the electric nodes off your testicles... and allowed YOU to speak?

On your belly, ENEMY COMBATANT OF THE STATE!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

lol

[Randman]

As a professional journalist (graduated in 1989 with a J degree with honors), I'd say the interview was questionable. There is a fine line between being rude and confrontational and being determined and deliberate and I'd have to think if the line was crossed here.
I think the questions in themselves were good, I just don't think the reporter did that good of a job in handling the manner in which the questions were presented.
If anything, the interruptions, which were unnecessary, and the annoyance of Bush became the story rather than the questions and Bush's answers, and that is poor journalism.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Randman:
As a professional journalist (graduated in 1989 with a J degree with honors), I'd say the interview was questionable. There is a fine line between being rude and confrontational and being determined and deliberate and I'd have to think if the line was crossed here.
I think the questions in themselves were good, I just don't think the reporter did that good of a job in handling the manner in which the questions were presented.
If anything, the interruptions, which were unnecessary, and the annoyance of Bush became the story rather than the questions and Bush's answers, and that is poor journalism.

Actually this is a good interview. As soon as Bush starts talking about something else than the reporter asked him about he stops Bush. That is what they are supposed to do, and what most good reporters always do. Perhaps I should just say: Welcome to European Journalism.

Most good reporters here don't allow the politicians to begin their pre-practiced way of going to the three point answering. The reporters just want the answers to their questions.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Logic:
Actually this is a good interview. As soon as Bush starts talking about something else than the reporter asked him about he stops Bush. That is what they are supposed to do, and what most good reporters always do.

There's a big difference between guiding the conversation back to the original point and rudely interrupting. Basically the journo wanted to score points by assuming an attack dog posture.
And I've been working outside the US for a couple of years now and have seen plenty of journalism from just about every part of the globe.
It's not a good interview because you remember the interviewing process far more than you remember the actual interview.
If Bush was trying to give pat answers, you let him go on for a bit, then guide it back. If it happens quite often, you get a little more forceful.
I don't know the history of this journalist but it sounds like a bush leaguer trying to play with the major leaguers and opting for an attack tack low on tact.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Randman:
There's a big difference between guiding the conversation back to the original point and rudely interrupting. Basically the journo wanted to score points by assuming an attack dog posture.
And I've been working outside the US for a couple of years now and have seen plenty of journalism from just about every part of the globe.
It's not a good interview because you remember the interviewing process far more than you remember the actual interview.
If Bush was trying to give pat answers, you let him go on for a bit, then guide it back. If it happens quite often, you get a little more forceful.
I don't know the history of this journalist but it sounds like a bush leaguer trying to play with the major leaguers and opting for an attack tack low on tact.

The interview I saw on TV, maybe on BBC, was led by a female interviewer, and it seemed a bit rude, but not excessively rude. There is an old guy on BBC who does interviews in his special political show, who is really fast asking and very rude and impatient, I forgot his name. But compared to him, that female interviewer was rather polite and well-meaning.

Taliesin

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
There is an old guy on BBC who does interviews in his special political show, who is really fast asking and very rude and impatient, I forgot his name.

Tim Sebastian.

He can be abrasive but he generally treats all interviewees the same - it's kind of his 'technique'.

[andi*pandi]

It sounded perhaps like the interviewer jumped in on a pause. Maybe it was a very long pause.

Either way, Bush's answers weren't very inspiring.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Tim Sebastian.

He can be abrasive but he generally treats all interviewees the same - it's kind of his 'technique'.

That guy is scary, I wouldn't want to get on his bad side.

[Troll]

What she should have asked him was the following:

"How do you reconcile the United State's committment to eradicating terrorism, with the refusal to take steps against groups that openly collect funds in the USA on behalf of and smuggle arms to the New IRA and other Irish terrorist groups? How do you reconcile that commitment with the refusal to extradite people wanted for having committed terrorist acts in Ireland?"

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nicko:
That guy is scary, I wouldn't want to get on his bad side.

I don't think he has a good side!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Logic:
Actually this is a good interview. As soon as Bush starts talking about something else than the reporter asked him about he stops Bush. That is what they are supposed to do, and what most good reporters always do. Perhaps I should just say: Welcome to European Journalism.

Most good reporters here don't allow the politicians to begin their pre-practiced way of going to the three point answering. The reporters just want the answers to their questions.

You can argue manners as much as you want... but I agree. Bush tends to change the topic, and attempt to relate it back to the question (effectively skipping the actual question). I'm personally pretty sick of this. I don't think 1 US reporter yet has gotten a 100% strait answer from him. And if they did, it never aired, or was put to print.

Lawyer speak isn't an answer. That's what press releases are for.

Many people in the media are doing this more and more. From celebrities, to congress. It's getting pretty annoying. You don't need an interview to put out a press release. Press releases go on paper. An interview is to answer questions, not read the press release out loud.


And another thing.... should be a law requiring aknowledgement when an interview is done in the presence of an lawyer. Because that changes everything. Would make it a lot easier on the general public when listening and making a decision about the character of an individual. Especially in election season.

[dreilly1]

If I was being interviewed in this manner, I'd be testy too.

Now, I always thought that Bush "sounds" better when you read his transcripts than when you hear him talk, (I still want to find out who "Tara" is, and why we're at war with her) but I think he did rather well considering the interview style chosen by the interviewer. I certainly don't agree with every point he made, and the bit about Pakistan being a democracy is a little disconcerting (you'd think that after three years he'd know), but I don't consider whoever this was to be a "real" journalist (as daimoni contends), just a bad one. Even his questions weren't particularly insightful, and I don't think we learned anything more about Bush by his answers to them.

Here in the US we have our share of beligerent interviewers, but they tend to be politically motivated and craft their interviews to prove their viewpoint, not to learn more about their interviewee's viewpoints. Entertaining, but hardly real journalism.

[Spliffdaddy]

The 'tara' thing is wierd.

Sounds exactly like a yankee.

They can't pronounce anything with an 'er' or 'ar' in it. Always sounds like 'ah' no matter how hard they try.

drawer = drah

car = cah

dog = dahg

I could do this all day...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The 'tara' thing is wierd.

Sounds exactly like a yankee.

*psssst* Bush is about as blue blood yankee as they come. He only tries to imitate a homey accent because he's talking down to you.

BG

[xi_hyperon]

He always sounds as if he is on the precipice of a mental and verbal meltdown. Just barely hanging on by virtue of simplistic and black and white answers to the few questions he gets.

[daimoni]

.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
If I was being interviewed in this manner, I'd be testy too.

Now, I always thought that Bush "sounds" better when you read his transcripts than when you hear him talk, (I still want to find out who "Tara" is, and why we're at war with her) but I think he did rather well considering the interview style chosen by the interviewer. I certainly don't agree with every point he made, and the bit about Pakistan being a democracy is a little disconcerting (you'd think that after three years he'd know), but I don't consider whoever this was to be a "real" journalist (as daimoni contends), just a bad one. Even his questions weren't particularly insightful, and I don't think we learned anything more about Bush by his answers to them.

Here in the US we have our share of beligerent interviewers, but they tend to be politically motivated and craft their interviews to prove their viewpoint, not to learn more about their interviewee's viewpoints. Entertaining, but hardly real journalism.

Originally posted by daimoni:
Remember that the interviewer submitted her questions 3 days in advance.

There were no surprises. No attack out of left field.

Thank you, this has been established. But I doubt there was an addendum at the bottom of the list of questions about the interviewer having the talent of a high school newspaper "journalist".

[daimoni]

.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Ooops. I forgot that "real journalism" in America means asking the pre-prepared questions submitted by the White House.

Coleman was supposed to ask the suggested question about "what Irish PM Ahern was wearing that day."

Oh, yeah. That's real journalism for you.

The boat left.

Condolences.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Ooops. I forgot that "real journalism" in America means asking the pre-prepared questions submitted by the White House.

Does kind of make you wonder about how many americans take the media seriously in the US.

Americans accept this as the norm... when really it shouldn't be.

The reason why we don't just ask the press secretary is because we want the president's answers. Not the press secretary.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Ooops. I forgot that "real journalism" in America means asking the pre-prepared questions submitted by the White House.

Coleman was supposed to ask the suggested question about "what Irish PM Ahern was wearing that day."

Oh, yeah. That's real journalism for you.

That's not what I mean, although I do admit that I'm not too upset if the President requests questions in advance, as long as he doesn't get to pick and choose which ones he answers (which may not have been the case here, I don't know). That might even make an interview go more smoothly with this particular President, since he seems much less effective speaking off the cuff when suprised with a question which he hasn't rehearsed for. I'd rather have a well-rehearsed answer that he believes with conviction to an off-the-cuff answer which he's not too sure of.

Regardless of the questions asked, though, there was no reason for this interviewer to interrupt his interviewee. That's what I think is bad journalism. Not that I'm an expert at it, but I just think that sets up a confrontational attitude which we don't need in an interview. And interviewer can hold opinions which are contrary with his interviewee without resorting to confrontation.

And "real journalism" in America is pretty rare, too. It seems like every interview is confrontational, because every show with interviews needs to be from the right or the left. People here tune into political interviews to either reaffirm their own beliefs or watch the host skewer someone of the opposite belief, not to get information about the interviewee. That's sad.

I thought the Europeans were above that, but I guess noone is.

[Zimphire]

Real journalist? He had no tact. He lacked honesty.

He was a spin master.

[Randman]

Well, I never interviewed a president, at least not one in office, but I did interview Quayle when he was veep along a few other reporters, one from AP, a couple of radio and TV interviewers.
When asked a question, Dan would tend to spout a canned answer almost everytime. You simply let him go on and then say, excuse me, Mr Vice President... and you repeat the question.
And questions weren't submitted. And submitting a general question is far different than the manner in which it's asked.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Randman:
Well, I never interviewed a president, at least not one in office, but I did interview Quayle when he was veep along a few other reporters, one from AP, a couple of radio and TV interviewers.
When asked a question, Dan would tend to spout a canned answer almost everytime. You simply let him go on and then say, excuse me, Mr Vice President... and you repeat the question.
And questions weren't submitted. And submitting a general question is far different than the manner in which it's asked.

That's about how it's supposed to work. You let them know what topics will be covered in the interview, and away we go, with the reporter deciding on the exact form of the question. This gives them time to prepare, but will make them look like idiots if they script.

The impression I get is that it doesn't work that way with this administration. For whatever reason, everything is heavily scripted.

BlackGriffen

[itai195]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
Regardless of the questions asked, though, there was no reason for this interviewer to interrupt his interviewee. That's what I think is bad journalism. Not that I'm an expert at it, but I just think that sets up a confrontational attitude which we don't need in an interview. And interviewer can hold opinions which are contrary with his interviewee without resorting to confrontation.

While I'd agree in principle, what is a journalist supposed to do when he/she has limited time and the interviewee keeps spewing lengthy, canned answers? I've got no problem with confrontational interviews when the interviewee isn't being candid.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Real journalist? He had no tact. He lacked honesty.

He was a spin master.

Would you consider yourself a 'spin master' if you asked someone at the bank a question? Or do you think they should give you a real answer, since they are serving you.

[vmpaul]

I didn't read the whole thread but here's the video of that interview. Sorry if it's been posted already.

It's a RealOne Player URL. I think you need to open RealOne player first and then paste the URL into it. Or just click on it and it may launch the player.

I tried watching it a couple of times and the server was overloaded so if you don't get it the first time, try again later.


Bush interview:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/pri...time56_1c.smil

[daimoni]

.

[cpt kangarooski]

Randman--

And questions weren't submitted.

That's not what the interviewer says about this interview. (Beginning at about 1:40 into the clip)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Randman--


That's not what the interviewer says about this interview. (Beginning at about 1:40 into the clip)

No, he's saying that's how it was when he was working and questioning Dan Quayle.

BG

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by voyageur:
It's clear George W. Bush can't think his way out of a paper bag.
How reassuring that "his job is to do his job", and that he seems to think Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the Middle East.

...and that they are "emerging" democracies...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by daimoni:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040625-2.html

Interview of the President by Radio and Television Ireland
The Library
June 24, 2004

4:08 P.M. EDT
(...)
Q And they're angry over Iraq, as well, and particularly the continuing death toll there.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can understand that. People don't like war. But what they should be angry about is the fact that there was a brutal dictator there that had destroyed lives and put them in mass graves and had torture rooms. Listen, I wish they could have seen the seven men that came to see me in the Oval Office -- they had their right hands cut off by Saddam Hussein because the currency had devalued when he was the leader. And guess what happened? An American saw the fact that they had had their hands cut off and crosses -- or Xs carved in their forehead. And he flew them to America. And they came to my office with a new hand, grateful for the generosity of America, and with Saddam Hussein's brutality in their mind.(...)

All of this goodness from: http://www.boingboing.net/

Well M. President, let's talk about the Justice system of your friends in Saudi Arabia, whom were accused by Amnesty International for their beheading and amputation habits.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
You can argue manners as much as you want... but I agree. Bush tends to change the topic, and attempt to relate it back to the question (effectively skipping the actual question). I'm personally pretty sick of this. I don't think 1 US reporter yet has gotten a 100% strait answer from him. And if they did, it never aired, or was put to print.

The larger question is this: Do you feel like you have a good idea as to what President Bush's values, views, and stances on the issues are?

If so, than I find it hard to believe that no one has ever ever gotten a straight answer from him.

Kerry on the other hand... that have no idea what that guy's core values are.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

Kerry on the other hand... that have no idea what that guy's core values are.

Kerry voted FOR core values before he voted against them.