@Walter Hinteler,
If Hoekstra can't back up claims he has made about what has happened in Holland, he should either acknowledge he cannot or admit that he was mistaken...and move on. Many politicians of all stripes seem to think the world will come to an end if they admit they've been wrong and that's probably due to the
no-win situation they are placed in by the press: If they refuse to admit they were wrong, they get hammered and if they admit they were wrong...they get hammered. Reporters (whether Dutch or American) are being entirely disingenuous when they suggest that Hoekstra or politicians like him need only admit they were wrong and they will move on. A few may, but most won't until hammering the person about being wrong no longer sells newspapers, and most of them will be all too willing to bring up the error in the future if it suits them:
"So, Ambassador Hoekstra, you tell us you are certain that you are correct about the government of the Netherlands screwing the US with protectionist policies governing the sale of American grown tulips in Holland, but you also said you were correct about "No-Go" zones in Amsterdam..until you admitted you were wrong. When will you be retracting your Tulip Claims?"
I don't feel sorry for Hoekstra or any other politician who finds themselves in this Catch-22 position. 1) They should avoid making bombastic claims they can't back up (Few will) 2) They know, or should know, the score relative to the press...especially if they are Republicans(Who just can't seem to learn their lesson)
At this point, Hoekstra won't be able to entirely avoid the hammer blows. It's just a matter of choosing the route that will involve fewer and less forceful ones. In all likelihood, this issue isn't going away anytime soon in the Netherlands. I've no doubt that there are a great many among the Dutch people who enjoy watching their journalists hammer a member of the Trump Administration, and it's not as if there are likely to be many barn-burner stories about US/Dutch relations that will redirect their attention. It's become a contest for some of them too. The only question is how long they can keep it up before the Dutch people find it boring or obnoxious. That may take a while.
If he just goes beyond vague regrets and admits he "may have been mistaken" and he has no documentation of his claims (or something similar that his PR people come up with), the admission will get a lot of coverage there and here for a very short period of time and then get overwhelmed by a more important or more sensational story. Any reporter who brings it up soon afterward will look like a jerk. Yes, some snarky Dutch journalist will bring the matter up again down the road, but that really shouldn't be too tough to deal with. Very few politicians seem to think ahead and prepare themselves for the absolutely inevitable press comments or questions that should be entirely predictable. At such a time a well-prepared comment that turns the tables by pointing out that questions like these are why politicians are reluctant to admit they are wrong could be very effective and would, I'm sure, be well received by his supporters and people who are, in general, fed up with
Gotcha journalism.
I like aggressive reporters who, with some measure of due courtesy, press politicians on evasive or false answers. I like them a whole lot better when they do it with politicans of all parties and ideologies (many don't) and when they don't try to use their persistance as a grandstanding ploy to make a name for themselves (many do - e.g. Dan Rather, Jim Acosta, Helen Thomas, April Ryan et al - Ryan is particularly annoying because she enjoys playing the bulldog and then whines about how she wasn't invited to the White House Christmas Party) An excellent example of how it should be done is Major Garret of CBS News.
An excellent example of the sort of gloryhound that apparently infects the Dutch press corp just as they infect the American press crowd is the woman who shouted to Hoekstra
"This is not how it works. This is the Netherlands. You have to answer the questions."
Oh really? Dutch politicians are all completely forthright and give direct answers to direct questions from the Dutch press? I don't believe it and this from the WP article blatham linked supports my incredulity:
Quote:He (Roel Geeraedts) said that the press corps' unwillingness to let the question go was a spontaneous response, and said he had seen a similar tactic employed on a smaller scale when Dutch politicians gave evasive answers to direct questions. But he said politics in the Netherlands differed a bit from the current situation in the United States.
“In the Netherlands, you don’t get a straight-up answer, if you ask straight-up questions,”
With this, one Dutch journalist gave lie to the snarky comment of another, but, again, she of the snarky comment probably has her audience gauged accurately and knows "This is the Netherlands!" will go over big with a group that, ironically, is most likely of the opinion that nationalism is a bad thing, but who feels the same way about the Trump Administration if not America in general.
Of interest in the afore-quoted comment by Geeraedts is his revelation that he had seen the same "tactic" employed by the Dutch press against Dutch politicians but on a
smaller scale. So, the Dutch journalists saved their full firepower for an American ambassador rather than deploying it against the people in power in their country who have a hell of a lot more influence on the lives of their readers and viewers than Pete Hoekstra or even Donald Trump.
It's such a great quote because it's full of interesting bits like his claim that the press corp's tactic was
spontaneous. Isn't that something of an oxymoron? In any case, even it did spring from the moment and the surprise and outrage of the reporters, it's sure to be intentionally deployed at the next interview which is why Hoekstra has to have a better counter-measure than simply standing in awkward silence while his aid tries to shut the questioning down.
You or someone else is bound to point out that I omitted the following from Geeraedts' comment:
“But you hardly get false answers.”
In advance of such a point, "hardly" is not "never" and Hoekstra didn't give any false answers during the session (instead, he awkwardly didn't give any at all) and he didn't make any false statements. (Well, at least not during that part of the session in the clip, but somehow I suspect that if Hoekstra had come out with anything even in the vicinity of being false during the rest of the meeting, the whole world would know
)
Ultimately, Hoekstra was on point when he commented that he is in the Netherlands as a representative of the United States, its government,
and its people, and his role is not about him but about the interests and policies of the US. Comments he has made in the past about the Netherlands are relevant and newsworthy and I think it was entirely proper for the Dutch press to question him about them, but while both are representational positions, an Ambassador is something very different from a House Representative. If Hoekstra does his job properly there shouldn't be any more stories coming out of Holland that are centered on him or his personal opinions, however, the Dutch press is at the wheel on this. They can keep this alive and allow it to intrude upon every matter involving the Dutch/US relationship (Such a high tariffs on tulip imports from Iowa) or they can have their fun, make their statement and then return their focus to their own evasive and lying politicians. (Even if there's only two of them).
Can you imagine this level of coverage of
anything the Dutch ambassador might say or not say about America? As an American, I find it flattering.
Geeraedts acknowledged that this level of follow-up is not the rule in Holland and so it's a bit silly for anyone to lament that US reporters won't or can't replicate the practice here. Politicians and activists, from every spot on the political spectrum, who regularly appear on TV or seek or submit to newspaper interviews, have become quite skilled at evasion. Not only are they unresponsive to the questions they don't want to answer, they're quite good at
filibustering with pre-planned propaganda which, come hell or high water, they are bound and determined to spew. This frustrating and infuriating practice often leads to the ridiculous spectacle of the shill in question delivering, as the segment is wrapped up, a furious, last-minute recitation of the talking points he or she failed to make while dancing around a persistent interviewer's questions. I really don't know what responsible journalists can do to put a stop to it.
I'm not referring to the lapdogs who sit there and toss softballs at the interviewee while gazing adoringly at him or her (Obama's
alternative media interviews come to mind). Nor do I mean the attack dogs who could care less what their guests have to say unless they are confessing to crimes or telling the interviewer he or she is absolutely brilliant. (Think Laura Ingram). Both of these models have their audiences and the reasons they are watched or listened to have nothing to do with getting answers or becoming informed.
(Re Ingram and others like her, e.g Don Lemon. I don't know why anyone of the opposing side goes on their shows. It must be an ego thing, like stepping into the saloon favored by Wild Bill Hickock; with guns drawn. I see it all the time with Tucker Carlson's show. I don't put Carlson in the same category as the others since he pretty much always allows his guests to have their say, but he regularly eviscerates them. They have to have known when they accepted his invitation, that he's very good at what he does, that he will be gunning for them, and like Wild Bill, isn't going to let a punk who thinks he's quick on the draw get the better of him. I have a very strong feeling though that a great number of his guests leave his show not only unaware that they have left their small and large intestines behind but, with the help of tweets from friends and student sycophants, pumped with the sense that they have just obliterated
him.)
I mean the folks like Chris Wallace and Jake Tapper who do try and pin their guests down, but who are just not going to rephrase
the question a third or fourth time and have the entire interview turned into an Argentine tango because 1) The majority of their audience doesn't want to watch such frustrating and pointless jousting 2) There are only so many ways to phrase a question and once the guest gets into an effective evasion groove it highly unlikely they can be shaken free 3) As they frequently mention when they give up and move on,
there are a lot of other points they want to cover in a short period of time (and with the next one, the guest might get caught off guard or trip up 4) Interviewers of their calibre are often able to attract big time newsmakers who are not going to return to the show if the host badgers the hell out of them on one question for the entire segment.
Tim Russert was as good at follow-up as I think I've ever seen but these people who come on these shows have gotten even better at evasion since he passed away. Even he would have a tougher time now than he did in his heyday.
