TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Banned interview of Bush in US

Banned interview of Bush in US

This is a video of a TV interview with President Bush. It was later found out that this interview was not shown on American television because it is banned! Why you ask, take a look and see...

1. So because it wasn't aired that means it was banned?

2. Who banned it?

3. Who was going to show it and didn't/couldn't?


The US has many new agencies struggling to out do each other, and I don't see why them not showing an Irish interview with the president constitutes a ban. Or are we not considering every piece of media produced throughout the world that deals with Americans or American politics that is not re-aired in the US to be "banned?"

This is your one and only post here, so I'm not expecting a reply, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

I'm sorry but I find it incomprehensible that a media interview with the President of America would not be broadcast by any US media company. I cannot imagine an interview with Gordon Brown by a foreign news channel not being aired or commented on in the UK. I don't know what the media laws are in America, but I wouldn't have thought they would have the power to ban already-aired media interviews with the President, maybe RTE wouldn't allow anyone else their exclusive footage?

Anyway, it was good fun watching that complete idiot that half the population of America voted for!

He was certainly on form for his knowledge of geography when asked if democracy should start with the wider Middle East - he went on to list three "democracies" as proof - Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan - none of which are even in the Middle East and two of which are certainly NOT democracies!

And if it was banned then it must be for his comments early on in the interview where he referred to America's help for Ireland through history - clearly a reference to American state sponsorship of terrorism!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley He was certainly on form for his knowledge of geography when asked if democracy should start with the wider Middle East - he went on to list three "democracies" as proof - Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan - none of which are even in the Middle East

Be careful with statements like that

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Be careful with statements like that

At a push, and using a very loose definition of Middle East, perhaps, just perhaps Turkey might be part of it. However, the Middle East is usually the Arab lands. Turkey is not Arab and is nowadays usually considered to be part of Europe. Afghanistan and Pakistan on the other hand have never been considered part of the Middle East ever...

I don't get it, there was nothing out of the ordinary about this interview in contrast with all of the other Bush interviews.

oh I love this lady!! she is right in his face with some serious questions and Bush is shiting his pants.

Bush's mannerisms may be amusing, but he really a very smart guy. His dedication to such a moralistic ideology astounds me. Morality is the WORST standard of foreign policy HANDS DOWN, and history shows it.

i don't see any huplah here. an eager reporter. i thought bush did ok describing his positions. not that they were very in-depth or anything (put you can't really go in-depth in 1 min spans on a topic).

Lots of media outlets in the US, all wanting their own interview/inside scoop/edge. They all produce plenty of crap to fill their airwaves and more than likely don't have the time or see the point in showing an interview with the president that they have every opportunity to do themselves. Especially when it comes from a foreign source, that groan if you wish, would simply be brushed off by Bush sympathizers (an outside attack). It's great that we have the internet and even things in the US like CNN International and the BBC to see these things from different perspectives, but my point is just because it wasn't pickup up and shown by a major media outlet does not mean that it was banned.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Lots of media outlets in the US, all wanting their own interview/inside scoop/edge. They all produce plenty of crap to fill their airwaves and more than likely don't have the time or see the point in showing an interview with the president that they have every opportunity to do themselves.

Yea cos every other American news channel interviewed the President that day

In the UK, each week the Prime Minister has to stand in front of Parliament and answer questions from any MP. Every week our PM is grilled on the most contentious, and sometimes irrelevent, issues. This doesn't happen in the US. It seems a rarity that the President is grilled by his opponents. This makes this interview fairly unique, hence people's surprise that none of the American media companies commented on it...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yea cos every other American news channel interviewed the President that day In the UK, each week the Prime Minister has to stand in front of Parliament and answer questions from any MP. Every week our PM is grilled on the most contentious, and sometimes irrelevent, issues. This doesn't happen in the US. It seems a rarity that the President is grilled by his opponents. This makes this interview fairly unique, hence people's surprise that none of the American media companies commented on it...

Well, Bush isn't the only source of news in the US. He's also available for the press on a fairly regular basis. I think more than likely the news shows realize that the president "doesn't sell." If he's doing something really big, or really stupid, then they'll pop him on the tube, but an Irish interview where he looks stupid really doesn't sell. Look at his approval ratings...most people know he's an idiot and don't like what he's doing. Another interview proving that is not going to change many minds on him and it's not going to draw many ratings for the networks.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, Bush isn't the only source of news in the US. He's also available for the press on a fairly regular basis. I think more than likely the news shows realize that the president "doesn't sell." If he's doing something really big, or really stupid, then they'll pop him on the tube, but an Irish interview where he looks stupid really doesn't sell. Look at his approval ratings...most people know he's an idiot and don't like what he's doing. Another interview proving that is not going to change many minds on him and it's not going to draw many ratings for the networks.

You seem to be missing what news reporting is all about! Not many people know what will be on the news before it's broadcast - that's why they watch it! Maybe one or two stories will get plugged during the day, but the majority won't, so your arguments about ratings doesn't really wash well. Also your argument about changing people's minds doesn't work as most news channels will have a certain audience, that may be pro- or anti-Bush/republicans. So maybe the pro-Bush ones will shy away from broadcasting it but those of a more "liberal" (as you say in America) would be more inclined to broadcast it to consolidate those opinions you referred to

This is the same song and dance americans have heard before......

nothing new here folks....move along

banned?? I think not... its already known

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono 1. So because it wasn't aired that means it was banned? 2. Who banned it? 3. Who was going to show it and didn't/couldn't? The US has many new agencies struggling to out do each other, and I don't see why them not showing an Irish interview with the president constitutes a ban. Or are we not considering every piece of media produced throughout the world that deals with Americans or American politics that is not re-aired in the US to be "banned?" This is your one and only post here, so I'm not expecting a reply, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

+1

I only got through 3 minutes until it got boring...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You seem to be missing what news reporting is all about! Not many people know what will be on the news before it's broadcast - that's why they watch it! Maybe one or two stories will get plugged during the day, but the majority won't, so your arguments about ratings doesn't really wash well. Also your argument about changing people's minds doesn't work as most news channels will have a certain audience, that may be pro- or anti-Bush/republicans. So maybe the pro-Bush ones will shy away from broadcasting it but those of a more "liberal" (as you say in America) would be more inclined to broadcast it to consolidate those opinions you referred to

I think you're missing the point. News outlets, unless run by a state or non-profit group, are out to make money. Yes, they *should* be obligated to report any and everything, but they don't. People may not know what's going to be on before they start to watch, but they sure as hell can change it if they don't like it. That's why most of the news stations, except in times of "hot" news stories, jump back and forth from topic to topic; simply to keep the viewer's attention. With at least 5 major news networks, each one is fighting to keep viewers, because once they've switched the channel, they have many other news stations to satiate their news fix. As sad as it may be in your opinion, an Irish interview of president Bush just doesn't sell. In the end you can argue that the news "system" in the US is wrong because it doesn't report everything that happens in the world, but I think it would be hard to find any country that consistently broadcasts everything anyone may consider news worthy.

Back to my original point; just because it wasn't broadcast, doesn't mean it was banned.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.