|
Anyone watch it this morning? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
| Yoepus, I totally agree about Russert. It's not only him that acts like that IMHO it's most modern day reporters. I feel like they're trying to dig and pick away at a person until they say something wrong or stupid so they can pounce on them. Russert is one who seems to like asking the same question over and over, changing it slightly until he gets the answer he wants. He does it on Meet the Press all the time, and I don't know how half those people can stand being interviewed by him. Like I said though, it seems pretty common throughout the media now adays to badger the person you're interviewing until they say something you can use as a scoop. It makes me uncomfortable watching it. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Yoepus, I totally agree about Russert. It's not only him that acts like that IMHO it's most modern day reporters. I feel like they're trying to dig and pick away at a person until they say something wrong or stupid so they can pounce on them. Russert is one who seems to like asking the same question over and over, changing it slightly until he gets the answer he wants. He does it on Meet the Press all the time, and I don't know how half those people can stand being interviewed by him. Like I said though, it seems pretty common throughout the media now adays to badger the person you're interviewing until they say something you can use as a scoop. It makes me uncomfortable watching it. |
I disagree only because the liberal media :rolleyes: hasn't really asked Bush any real question before and just let him off easy. Although I havn't watched the video, it doesn't matter because Bush can only pronouce very few words anyway. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Yoepus, I totally agree about Russert. It's not only him that acts like that IMHO it's most modern day reporters. I feel like they're trying to dig and pick away at a person until they say something wrong or stupid so they can pounce on them. Russert is one who seems to like asking the same question over and over, changing it slightly until he gets the answer he wants. He does it on Meet the Press all the time, and I don't know how half those people can stand being interviewed by him. Like I said though, it seems pretty common throughout the media now adays to badger the person you're interviewing until they say something you can use as a scoop. It makes me uncomfortable watching it. |
I agree to some extent, but at the same time, we need someone willing to ask the tough questions. The White House has a system to make the President look in the best light with reporters. At press conferences, the reporters are pre-screened, and he only calls on the Fox News, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, and Wall Street Journal reporters. Helen Thomas is seated at the very back of the room and never called on after she asked him about his extremist religious agenda that violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause at the beginning of his Presidency.
So for picking on an old lady, I'm glad Russert let him have it.
:tongue2 |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Helen Thomas is seated at the very back of the room and never called on after she asked him about his extremist religious agenda that violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause at the beginning of his Presidency. |
 |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
If I were the Bush-Cheney campaign manager, I think I would have a few shots of 151 after seeing that interview being played over and over on c-span. :D
Although Tim Russert is a Republican, he cut Bush no slack. It seemed to me that Bush had rather repetitive answers for Russerts questions and often times (to no surprise) stumbled on explanations and thoughts that, in the end, turned out to be the same answer.
I was amazed that Bush did concede that the optimism for a WMD finding in Iraq is dwindling and yet have to find any....it was this point that I was astounded to see that Russert nailed Bush on and pretty much kept rubbing the salt into the wound. |
I thought he did very poorly too, and I was trying my best to be open minded. :)
Here's a great article critical of the President's speech from the Wall Street Journal of all places, by none other than former Reagan aide Peggy Noonan:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/colum...n/?id=110004665
| quote: |
Philosophy, Not Policy
Why Bush isn't good at interviews.
Sunday, February 8, 2004 4:30 p.m. EST
President Bush's interview on "Meet the Press" seems to me so much a big-story-in-the-making that I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts. I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.
It was an important interview. The president has been taking a beating for two months now--two months of the nonstop commercial for the Democratic Party that is the Democratic primaries, and then the Kay report. And so people watched when he decided to come forward in a high stakes interview with Tim Russert, the tough interviewer who's an equal-opportunity griller of Democrats. He has heroic concentration and a face like a fist. His interviews are Beltway events.
But certain facts of the interview were favorable to the president. Normally it's mano a mano at Mr. Russert's interview table in the big, cold studio. But this interview was in the Oval Office, on the president's home ground, in front of the big desk. Normally it's live, which would be unnerving for a normal person and is challenging for politicians. Live always raises the stakes. But Mr. Bush's interview was taped. Saturday. Taped is easier. You can actually say, "Can we stop for a second? Something in my eye."
You can find the transcript of the Bush-Russert interview all over the Web. It reads better than it played. But six million people saw it, and many millions more will see pieces of it, and they will not be the pieces in which Mr. Bush looks good.
The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard experience--he's been thrown this question for 10 years now--he spoke in a way that seemed detached. "It's politics." Well yes, we know that. Tell us more.
I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.
I don't think Mr. Bush's supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed when he doesn't give it to them. So I'm not sure he disturbed his base. I think he just failed to inspire his base. Which is serious enough--the base was looking for inspiration, and needed it--but not exactly fatal.
Mr. Bush's supporters expect him to do well in speeches, and to inspire them in speeches. And he has in the past. The recent State of the Union was a good speech but not a great one, and because of that some Bush supporters were disappointed. They put the bar high for Mr. Bush in speeches, and he clears the bar. But his supporters don't really expect to be inspired by his interviews.
The Big Russ interview will not be a big political story in terms of Bush supporters suddenly turning away from their man. But it will be a big political story in terms of the punditocracy and of news producers, who in general don't like Mr. Bush anyway. Pundits will characterize this interview, and press their characterization on history. They will compare it to Teddy Kennedy floundering around with Roger Mudd in 1980 in the interview that helped do in his presidential campaign. News producers will pick Mr. Bush's sleepiest moments to repeat, and will feed their anchors questions for tomorrow morning: "Why did Bush do badly, do you think?"
So Mr. Bush will have a few bad days of bad reviews ahead of him.
But I am thinking there are two kinds of minds in politics. There are those who absorb and repeat their arguments and evidence--their talking points--with vigor, engagement and certainty. And there are those who cannot remember their talking points.
Those who cannot remember their talking points can still succeed as leaders if they give good speeches. Speeches are more important in politics than talking points, as a rule, and are better remembered.
Which gets me to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan had a ready wit and lovely humor, but he didn't as a rule give good interviews when he was president. He couldn't remember his talking points. He was a non-talking-point guy. His people would sit him down and rehearse all the fine points of Mideast policy or Iran-contra and he'd say, "I know that, fine." And then he'd have a news conference and the press would challenge him, or approach a question from an unexpected angle, and he'd forget his talking points. And fumble. And the press would smack him around: "He's losing it, he's old."
Dwight Eisenhower wasn't good at talking points either.
George W. Bush is not good at talking points. You can see when he's pressed on a question. Mr. Russert asks, why don't you remove George Tenet? And Mr. Bush blinks, and I think I know what is happening in his mind. He's thinking: Go through history of intelligence failures. No, start with endorsement of George so I don't forget it and cause a big story. No, point out intelligence didn't work under Clinton. Mention that part of the Kay report that I keep waiting for people to mention.
He knows he has to hit every point smoothly, but self-consciousness keeps him from smoothness. In real life, in the office, Mr. Bush is not self-conscious. Nor was Mr. Reagan.
What we are looking at here is not quality of mind--Mr. Bush is as bright as John Kerry, just as Mr. Reagan was as bright as Walter Mondale, who was very good at talking points. They all are and were intelligent. Yet neither Mr. Bush's interviews and press conferences nor Mr. Reagan's suggested anything about what they were like in the office during a crisis: engaged, and tough. It's something else.
John Kerry does good talking points. In interviews he's asked for his views on tax cuts and he has it all there in his head in blocks of language that cohere and build. It gets boring the 14th time you hear it, but he looks capable. Hillary Clinton is great at talking points--she's the best, as her husband was the best in his time.
Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and Republicans have minds that do speeches. (Mr. Bush has given a dozen memorable speeches already; only one of his Democratic challengers has, and that was "I Have a Scream.") And the reason--perhaps--is that Democratic candidates tend to love the game of politics, and Republican candidates often don't. Democrats, because they admire government and seek to be part of it, are inclined to think the truth of life is in policy. How could they not then be engaged by policy talk, and its talking points?
Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that policy is something you have to have to move things forward in line with a philosophy. They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy and hate having to memorize talking points.
Speeches are the vehicle for philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of policy. Mr. Kerry does talking points and can't give an interesting speech. Mr. Bush can't do talking points and gives speeches full of thought and assertion.
Philosophy takes time. If you connect your answers in an interview to philosophy, or go to philosophy first, you can look as if you're dodging the question. You can forget the question. You can look a little gaga. But policy doesn't take time. Policy is a machine gun--bip bip bip. Education policy, bip bip bip. Next.
If I worked for President Bush I'd say spend the next nine months giving speeches, and limit interviews. If I worked for Mr. Kerry I'd say give a lot of interviews, be out there all the time, and don't try to wrap your points up in a coherent philosophy, which is something a good speech demands. Anyway, that's how I see it. Am I wrong? By the way, I've never been able to stick to a talking point in a TV interview in my life.
|
I've been following some of the foreign papers' stories about Cheney's corruption, and the press has really been soft on him here compared to what they could be covering. Honestly, if I were Bush I would drop Cheney because he has a good chance of sinking them both. It looks like they are going to keep him though, which is good for my side muahaha.
Oh, guess which company was listed as one of the top six companies with the most corporate scandal? Hallifiknowerton. :)
We're using it as a battle cry at rallies now btw.
:stongue: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I agree that the president shouldn't shelter himself from the tough questions, but my comment was more about reporting in general. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative (depends on the issue really), I have a problem with any reporter acting that way. Bill O'Reilly seems to be the epitome of this questioning style. I agree with alot of what he says, but I can't stand him because he tries his hardest to talk over, disrespect and make his "guests" feel as dumb as possible. I want to hear an intellegent discussion, not someone trying to beat up on the other person. Politicians are inafamous for avoiding questions, but trying to badger instead of outwit only encourages them and allows them to claim to be taking "the moral high road." This used to be an American phenomenon, as the BBC reporters generally didn't stoop to those tactics. However, it seems that this method has now spread to European news agencies as well. It sucks really. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I agree that the president shouldn't shelter himself from the tough questions, but my comment was more about reporting in general. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative (depends on the issue really), I have a problem with any reporter acting that way. Bill O'Reilly seems to be the epitome of this questioning style. I agree with alot of what he says, but I can't stand him because he tries his hardest to talk over, disrespect and make his "guests" feel as dumb as possible. I want to hear an intellegent discussion, not someone trying to beat up on the other person. Politicians are inafamous for avoiding questions, but trying to badger instead of outwit only encourages them and allows them to claim to be taking "the moral high road." This used to be an American phenomenon, as the BBC reporters generally didn't stoop to those tactics. However, it seems that this method has now spread to European news agencies as well. It sucks really. |
I agree with you in that sense. I guess I didn't understand where you were comming from.
NPR and the McNeil Leher News hour have the best kind of those in depth-interviews that aren't overly antagonistic.
:) |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I agree with you in that sense. |
This is a momentus day!!! :D |
|
|
| Shakka |
NeoPhono--you ever watch Charlie Rose? I had never seen him until I watched Bowling for Columbine and the bonus features. I don't know where to see him on TV, but I thought his questioning style was excellent.
Rizen, when you make statments like this:
| quote: | | I disagree only because the liberal media hasn't really asked Bush any real question before and just let him off easy. Although I havn't watched the video, it doesn't matter because Bush can only pronouce very few words anyway. |
You end up sounding dumb and you ruin any real meat that your argument may have otherwise had. |
|
|
| priveye03 |
I like this quote
Bush: I'm a war president.
Bush: want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror. :toothless |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Charlie Rose can be seen on your local PBS station - they show it in my area around 11:30pm. He is a good interviewer, he asks good questions most the times, but many times I feel he is just dumb related a person or topic not out of ill-will, but simply has no capacity, sort of like say Lettermen. Of course I think sometimes its good to play dumb, or have a dumb reporter, but othertimes you notice it and it puts you a bit lacking. That said when he has a good guest his show can become really interesting.
Also Dave, I disagree I don't believe the only way to ask hard questions is to be illmannered in doing so, I think there are many subtlies to posing a difficult question, and that if you give the interviewee a enough time without interruption he just might answer the question in a detailed manner.
I am all for hard tough questions, I am not for illmannered reports. |
|
|
|
|
