Pampered Bush meets real reporter-See the actual interview

Blatham
Thank you, Blatham. Sometimes I've felt like I (and a handfull of others) have been alone in ranting about the Medias' sorry performance since 2000. I hope it is not too late for the Media to make up for its failure to the public.

BBB

The Pluck of the Irish meets Bush with his foot in his mouth
The Pluck of the Irish
When his interview with the Irish TV journalist went sour, President Bush must have wished he was sitting down with Bono instead.
By Greg Mitchell - Editors and Publishers

(July 01, 2004) -- It's not often that I feel sorry for George W. Bush, but I have to admit to experiencing a few pangs of sympathy this week. His approval ratings hit rock bottom, Michael Moore's bushwhacking film opened big and, to top it off, the president had to contend with a journalist who had the temerity to ask him tough questions.

The flap over his brief interview with Carole Coleman of RTE, Ireland's state TV network, on June 25, continued Wednesday, as news spread that, in retaliation for her sometimes rude interruptions, the White House had lodged a complaint with the Irish embassy in Washington and canceled RTE's meeting with Laura Bush.

Also Wednesday, a reporter badgered Bush spokesman Scott McClellan concerning Coleman's claim that the White House had pre-approved her tough questions three days in advance. Since when, several journalists asked, did the White House OK questions from interviewers ahead of time? McClellan denied that he had asked for her questions, saying that wasn't official policy, but could not say whether another office had seen them.

This may be nothing but a blip in America, but Ireland is still buzzing about it. It was the first Irish TV interview with an American president since Ronald Reagan occupied the White House, and it came just before Bush's heavily-guarded visit to the Emerald Isle last Saturday. "Many viewed Bush's repeated chastisements of Coleman when she tried to challenge him as testy and defensive," Jim Dee of the Irish Times wrote for the Boston Herald.

Writing in the Irish Echo, an American newspaper, Susan Falvella-Garraty observed that Bush probably now thinks that RTE stands for "Radio-Television-Evil."

Still, one could feel a little sorry for Bush, as he has grown so accustomed to reporters who are stenographic, not confrontational. Since he has done so few interviews outside this feel-good bubble, he couldn't have been fully prepared for the quite different European style of aggressively holding officials accountable. Reporters there, when they get the chance, often pepper even the most admired politicians with harsh queries, sometimes butting in before a national leader has finished a sound bite.

Predictably, Coleman succeeded in getting Bush's Irish up. During the interview he must have considered repeating what Dick Cheney said to Patrick Leahy, or recalling when he told Michael Moore to get a real job. "Bono was never like this," he might have pondered.

According to the Irish embassy, the White House seemed most concerned about Coleman interrupting or "talking over" the president. Indeed, impatient with stock answers, she did. Here's a little flavor, if you haven't caught any excerpts on the telly:

BUSH: "Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighborhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat, such a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr. Saddam Hussein ...

COLEMAN: Indeed, Mr. President, but you didn't find the weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Let me finish. Let me finish. May I finish?

***

BUSH: Of course, I'm not going to put people in harm's way, our young, if I didn't think the world would be better. And ...

COLEMAN: Why is it that others ...

BUSH: Let me finish.

***

BUSH: Like Iraq, the Palestinian and the Israeli issue is going to require good security measures. And ...

COLEMAN: And a bit more even-handedness from America?

BUSH: ... and we're working on security measures.

***

Writing for the libertarian Web site, Reasononline, Jesse Walker claimed Coleman "wasn't rude to Bush at all," but was "fair and professional." The president simply "seemed unfamiliar with the idea that a journalist might want some say in the direction of an interview." He noted that at one juncture, Bush "expressed his displeasure by emitting one of those deliberately audible mouth-noises that worked so well for Al Gore in 2000's first presidential debate."

Coleman herself admitted, "There were a few stages at which I had to move him along for reasons of timing and he's not used to being moved along by the American media. Perhaps they're a bit more deferential."

Well, if the American reporters don't think they go along to get along, the White House seems to think so. According to Miriam Lord in the Irish Independent, a White House staffer suggested to Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question about the outfit that Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern wore to the recent G8 summit. Ahern, in case you missed it, wore a pair of canary-yellow trousers.

Perhaps Coleman, instead, should have asked Bush, former Texas Rangers owner, what he thinks of Michael Moore's baseball cap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mitchell ([email protected]) is editor of E&P.

"Stenographic, not confrontational". That is a precisely stated part of the problem.

One can see the clear value to an administration when news interviews and coverage procede in this manner...the adminstration's version of events is put forward without contradictory comment. This allows them to control the terms of each debate, to frame it to their advantage.

Another aspect to this is that wherever they can fill up the media with their voice, other voices are excluded. A good example was Rice's behavior in the 9-11 hearings...talk long and repeat and embellish and hold the floor for as long as you can get away with it. Essentially it is filling up the available media space with what they want it filled with. And that's another reason why the new right has developed so many media source points - not merely to forward a view, but also to fill the vacuum with a singular voice.

Modern media operations themselves have helped facilitate the stenographer mode through paring down (commonly) newsroom budgets and placing newsrooms under increasing bottom-line criteria. The number of outlets with foreign offices or staff located permanently outside of the country has been reduced to cut costs. Just as reality TV shows are being produced because they are relatively cheap to make and broadcast, news operations which are largely comprised of "the president said..." are far more inexpensive than thorough investigate pieces.

To me, one of their most outlandish move is the spin bs. It is much worse than Clinton "is, is". The one that was pointed out this week was a Rice move in the hearings. She had been talking about an issue (not sure which one, doesn't matter) in the media and closed hearings using the term "WE" - meaning the administration. Under oath, in the hearings that "WE" suddenly changed to "I". This is what "THEY" do all over the place.

Bush is good at the stonewalling technique and getting off the point is his forte. It's the bait and switch of a hard close salesman.

Oh yeah. I was lmao at how many times he used the hand motion in conjunction with Can I finish, can you let me finish, stop interrupting me...

Towards the end, he was so put out with the interviewer that he closed his eyes, sighed in disgust, and started again with the Can I finish, can you let me finish, stop interrupting me... He did the eye closed sigh of disgust twice.

Fool can't even make it through 10 whole minutes, lol.

Seems like he is unused to being expected to answer a question - not just be able to ramble on with high sounding drivel.

I expected she might have been rude - but, when I read the transcript - his complaints about interruption were just her blocking drivel, and trying to get him to answer questions.

She was actually very soft on him.

Just hitting the rounds of the press lately is a memo from Republican pollster and strategist Frank Lunz. Do read this to gain a clear understanding of how language is manipulated by the administration (others too, but for now, let's deal with the administration in place).

Note that the instructions include ALWAYS mentioning 9-11 when speaking of Iraq. Or ALWAYS mentioning that the world is a better place without Sadaam.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/Luntz.pdf

On the PBS NOW site, Lunz was on NOW this evening in an extended interview
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/luntz.html

Blatham, is that for real?

Whew. Crazy stuff.

Cycloptichorn

cyclo

The interview on NOW is very interesting indeed. Lunz is very charming and slick, a modern marketer with all the tools of the trade developed to an extremely effective level.

We make a big mistake to underestimate how smart and effective the modern Republican machine has become. We make no mistake when we deem it extreme or dangerous, but that other part is true as well.

Lunz is someone I haven't studied at all (it's a growing list of figures) but these techniques have been evident for a long time. Think of all the comments and speeches given by administration folks (and agents) which describe Bush as 'resolute'. That's no accident. Or 'war president'.

For three years I've been pointing to the PR aspects of the adminitration officials ALWAYS describing administration decisions as coming from Bush (they almost never place themselves as agents of decision). The strategy was pretty obvious, to portray Bush as 'in command', or as 'commanding', or as 'capable', and I suspect that was built on two factors: to fullfil some poll established tendency for voters to want a leader figure (eg Reagan) and also to counter the existing notions of Bush being a lightweight.

As usual, I'd suggest that anyone interested in the marketing/strategy angles of the republican party take a wander through gopusa.com. Always an interesting trip, occasionally frightening, sometimes entertaining to find the source of comments posted here.

Hmmm - that "always mention" etc stuff is pretty standard media training guff for pollies these days - what with stupid "sound bites" taking the place of anything remotely resembling an interview. They try to get THEIR message across - and, if they say it often enough, it is likely to appear in any sound bite the media show. Usually with anything of meat edited out. It ain't a one way street, this media/polly thing.

I WILL take a look, eh Beth. I been wonderin'....

deb

Sure, we can say that all sophisiticated political organizations forward particular messages through talking points. But this doesn't get us very far unless our only goal is to show we are being fair in attribution.

What we ought to be doing, I think, is yelling our noggins off every time we see instances of this sort of manipulation, because it can be highly deceitful as is clearly the case with the the memo I've linked above. Deceitful and effective.

What alternative do we have? Just let each instance pass by without comment? Allow the machinery which has resulted in some 70% of Americans at one time believing that Sadaam caused 9-11?

New technologies mean that we, as citizens, probably have to behave a bit differently than our father's had to do.

How telling that, in all the suggestions listed on the Republican lesson sheet on communication, there was never a reference to telling the simple truth.

It's all about embellishment, smoke and mirrors and leading the American public in the direction that is most favorable to this administration, regardless of authenticity or truthfulness.

Yes, this is a method used by politicians regardless of party, marketers and confidence men; but the Repulicans have it down to a cold, ruthless science of psychological manipulation.

Yes - but, as you acknowledge, the battlefront is wider than the repubs.

Good luck, though.

That's what was refreshing about Latham.

When confronted with a different position formerly taken on an issue - he would not wiggle and prevaricate - he'd just say" "Yeah - I changed my mind."

Bush is, plain and simple, using the hot button technique to close the sale of his ideology and his decisions. Anybody who falls for it will continue to have buyers remorse even if in denial.

We all used to think Bush was an embarrassment with his verbal skills. Can you imagine Cheney becoming president? "Go xxxx yourself" when he disagrees with international leaders.

Ought I to take anything from the use of past tense, deb?

Mr. Mountie, when Our Dear Wabbit says "Latham" in this context, she refers to an Ozzian politico . . .