Watch Bush's excelent performance in this one on one interview

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Slick5150
This interview shows how poor the US media is. Her "interruptions" are simply her way of trying to make him answer the question she asked rather than ignore it and spout his rhetoric. This is something that journalists have done since the beginning of journalism, and only recently the US media has stopped doing it by sticking to asking scripted questions and letting him (and others) just read prewritten responses and calling that an interview.

The point of a good interview is to challenge the person being interviewed to answer truthfully, not lob a softball at him and sit back and listen.

Indeed. You're right on point, and it happens so infrequently (holding somebody to the fire and demanding an answer) that when I do see it I'm like "hell yeah!".

Someone call Helen Thomas!

"hell yeah", indeed!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030106-1.html#2

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Slick5150
This interview shows how poor the US media is. Her "interruptions" are simply her way of trying to make him answer the question she asked rather than ignore it and spout his rhetoric. This is something that journalists have done since the beginning of journalism, and only recently the US media has stopped doing it by sticking to asking scripted questions and letting him (and others) just read prewritten responses and calling that an interview.

The point of a good interview is to challenge the person being interviewed to answer truthfully, not lob a softball at him and sit back and listen.

Indeed. You're right on point, and it happens so infrequently (holding somebody to the fire and demanding an answer) that when I do see it I'm like "hell yeah!". They probably don't do it because they know that they won't get interviews if they're actually "hard" on their guests.

Well exactly. They are told that either the interviewer asks specific questions, or they won't get the interview. And since an interview with Bush = ratings, they agree to it.

It used to be that the media would stick together and refuse such demands, basically telling the Whitehouse (or whoever) that either there are no rules to the interview, or you aren't going to be able to get your story out at all. Once one started caving in though (which includes faux-journalists like Barbara Walters ("Tell us Mr. President, what's your favorite color?"), and rabid partisan journalists like Bill O'Reilly and the like), they all started caving in so they weren't the ones left without an interview at all.

Sad state of affairs, but reality. And all the more reason to get your news from the BBC and other sources.

the whitehouse got the questions she was going to ask three days earlier, they were obviosly expecting the same old predefined "interviews" they are used to

 

[PatboyX]

wouldnt say its his best performance...i think he is not completely in control of himself during the interview.
i watched it on mute because i honestly dont agree with a lot of what he is saying (his constant interruptions were rough) and i pretty much assumed that so i watched it with no sound first to go by body language...and he looks just as nervous and jumpy as most of his press situations.

 

[Last Rezort]

He didnt actualy answer any questions! does this piss anyone else off?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Two quick lies....I mean, misspeaks, that I picked up on IMMEDIATELY.

1. The Madrid bombing WASN'T in response to the invasion of Iraq.

A video has been found in the rubble of a Spanish apartment where some suspects in the Madrid train bombings blew themselves up.

The Spanish interior ministry says the video warns Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The video says if Spain doesn't do so within a week, the country will face new attacks.

2. Bush's multiple assertions that HE was the only president to call for a Palestinian state.

President Clinton traveled to the Middle East December 12-15, 1998. Following an historic address to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in Gaza in which Clinton called for establishment of a Palestinian state, he witnessed a PLC vote "fully and forever" rejecting conflict with Israel and revoking articles of the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. However, since the PLC is the council of the Palestine National Authority, and not of the PLO, it is not clear if the vote was binding.

Ya mean when Clinton was targeting peace in the ME for his legacy. Then Hil needed the Jewish vote in NYC and Billy Bob reversed his position which left the Palistinians under Arrafat hanging, with hopes dashed and killing on their minds. That time?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Last Rezort
He didnt actualy answer any questions! does this piss anyone else off?

He hasn't answered a question during his whole time in office.