Salome
you are what you is
I guess wanting the answer to have to do with the actual question could indeed be perceived as trying to control the answer 
MERGED: Bush vs. the Irish Reporter
- Thread starter anitram
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Please tell me nobody seriously thinks the reporter was too hard on him. Listen to interviewers like Jeremy Paxman or, to a lesser extent, David Dimbleby, if you want to hear a journalist genuinely giving a politician a hard time. In any case, since when has it been a journalist's job to give politicians the opportunity to tell the audience what a great job they're doing?
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Asking hard questions and letting a politician respond are two different things. Interrupting doesn't make one a "hard nosed" reporter.
Salome
you are what you is
if a journalist lets anyone go on a random promo talk instead of answering the questions he/she is asked then the journalist isn't doing his/her job
in the end I even prefer it when someone just says that he/she won't answer a certain question then giving some kind of pre-fabricated speech
in the end I even prefer it when someone just says that he/she won't answer a certain question then giving some kind of pre-fabricated speech
Salome said:
I agree on both counts.
TheFirstBigW
The Fly
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 262
To one extent, I do agree with some of the criticisms expressed here in that if Bush is going to hold the job and put himself out there for interviews, then he has to be tough enough and well prepared enough to take the heat, regardless of how the reporter behaves.
zoney!
ONE love, blood, life
salome
ha.
Bush supporters are now blaming reporters for "bad behavior" during an interview.
Denying the issues!
ha.
Bush supporters are now blaming reporters for "bad behavior" during an interview.
Denying the issues!
Last edited:
joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I kept waiting for the 'tough' questions.
That was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen. Bush's reaction to her 'interruptions,' which were completely normal I thought, was ridiculous. He's really losing it--and I don't mean just the election.
Last edited:
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Interrupting someone when they're trying to talk is just plain rude. I dont care about the circumstances, or whether it is a reporter's job to turn into "Ms Gina Hardfaced Bitch". People have lost the basics of garden variety politeness these days.
That said, Bush shows himself to be ill-prepared and a blundering dolt too often. I've only read the transcript, not seen it, but both he and the reporter seemed to have no control over that interview. She failed to get him to answer virtually any of her questions and he seemed to have no answers anyway - so disregarded the questions and said want he wanted regardless. He paid the price by looking exceptionally ignorant as a result. It's beyond me why the Republican party continue to support him. He isn't the best they have to offer, surely.
That said, Bush shows himself to be ill-prepared and a blundering dolt too often. I've only read the transcript, not seen it, but both he and the reporter seemed to have no control over that interview. She failed to get him to answer virtually any of her questions and he seemed to have no answers anyway - so disregarded the questions and said want he wanted regardless. He paid the price by looking exceptionally ignorant as a result. It's beyond me why the Republican party continue to support him. He isn't the best they have to offer, surely.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Angela Harlem said:
Then again, if you only have 10 minutes for the interview, you don't want the interviewee to talk for 9 minutes about how great his garden is.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Angela Harlem said:
Neither party has run "the best they have to offer" in quite a while. Campaigns are not about seeking the best leadership, it is about obtaining control (which leads to control of $$$).
NameOfLove19
The Fly
nbcrusader said:
Yeah, it's pretty sad. I was in a forum where someone was asking people why John Kerry would make a good president. He didn't want people to say "because he's not Bush," he wanted people to talk about Kerry and his qualities. Everyone just flamed him for not being a Bush-hater. I hate to say that there's not much I can come up with..... don't get me wrong, Kerry's a good candidate. But can I definitively say that he's the best Dem for the job? Not with the certitude with which I say John McCain is a hell of a better Republican than the Shrub-master himself!
NameOfLove19
The Fly
OK, I think this deserves a thread of its own....
I was reading the transcription of the interview that we talked about in the "Pampered Bush meets a real reporter" thread- the interview's here if you'd like to read it. This was the bit that I found most troubling, though....
Nevermind the immediately following claims that the world is a safer place (I don't know whether it is or not, and it shouldn't be like that), his flustered choruses of "let me finish, then you can follow up, if you don't mind," or, as we said, his segue into canned speeches that dodge the issue. What angers me is that he claims to be the one to care about the soldiers death the most- more than friends, siblings, parents, spouses, and the general public. And yet, he doesn't allow their coffins to be phtographed, and he doesn't attend their funerals.
You can chalk up that first one to his administration's general media censorship (ie no newspapers in the White House, aides telling Bush what the media reportedly says, having to submit interview questions beforehand, etc.). One could also argue that the President had a full schedule and wasn't able to go to a funeral. But out of 900+ dead, he couldn't have skipped one fundraiser (out of the scores he went to over the past 17, 18 months) to recognize those who have fallen?
If this really is caring about the dead the most, then I'm frightened of what Bush considers apathy.
I was reading the transcription of the interview that we talked about in the "Pampered Bush meets a real reporter" thread- the interview's here if you'd like to read it. This was the bit that I found most troubling, though....
Nevermind the immediately following claims that the world is a safer place (I don't know whether it is or not, and it shouldn't be like that), his flustered choruses of "let me finish, then you can follow up, if you don't mind," or, as we said, his segue into canned speeches that dodge the issue. What angers me is that he claims to be the one to care about the soldiers death the most- more than friends, siblings, parents, spouses, and the general public. And yet, he doesn't allow their coffins to be phtographed, and he doesn't attend their funerals.
You can chalk up that first one to his administration's general media censorship (ie no newspapers in the White House, aides telling Bush what the media reportedly says, having to submit interview questions beforehand, etc.). One could also argue that the President had a full schedule and wasn't able to go to a funeral. But out of 900+ dead, he couldn't have skipped one fundraiser (out of the scores he went to over the past 17, 18 months) to recognize those who have fallen?
If this really is caring about the dead the most, then I'm frightened of what Bush considers apathy.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
I think this is pretty directly related to the "Pampered Bush" thread, so I'm going to merge this there so it gets more traffic.
NameOfLove19
The Fly
OK, sorry about that! 
