ehBeth wrote:Thomas wrote:Independent of whether the Democrats or the Republicans have the better policies, trust-building measures like Reagan's are important, and sorely lacking in the Bush presidency.
Thanks for the whole section there, Thomas. Id extend that "sorely lacking" to American politics, not just the Bush presidency. The few times that UA.SA. politicians go outside prepared sound bites these days, it seems that people/reporters don't know what to make of it. I blame the media business in the UA.SA. for that - they seem to want/prefer sound bites - not full responses to real questions. It's frustrating to observe.
It simply isn't acceptable in a lot of other western countries. We still have full body-press scrums here - pushing and shoving - by the media and the politicians - inappropriate questions and answers. I think it's important to see how people who want to be our leaders react when they don't have time to prepare a response/reaction.
If they can't handle unscripted interviews, the thought of what they're doing in real emergencies is horrifying.
Iamb not sure that being able to answer aggressive questions on the fly is such a crucial characteristic for a leader, or in any way indicative of how that person acts in a crisis. It is, undoubtedly, a stressful situation, and we do want our leaders to be able to handle themselves under stress, but is it the sort of stressful situation they are ever likely to face while acting in the role of president?
In any case, I would argue that any person who can simply maintain their composure and not either blow or freeze up during one of these sessions has evidenced a rare ability to perform under stress.
I have met any number of people over my life who are amazingly adept at answering tough questions, but at the same time are utterly lazy or incompetent when it comes to getting the job done. I call them Alchemists because they have found a way to turn sh*ta into gold.
While it is true that the better one knows a given subject, the better prepared one will be to answer tough questions, but do we really expect a single person to know so much about everything in the country and the world that he or she can field aggressive questions (many intended to set the person up) with an aplomb derived from comprehensive knowledge?
The stakes of the modern press conference are amazingly high for the president. Almost every reporter in attendance is trying to make the news by asking a question which will illicit a controversial or stupid answer. These sessions are not a way for the American people to learn about what the president thinks or is doing, they are a way for the hounds of the press to bait the presidential bear in his den.
It might be argued that if a president gave frequent press conferences, the sharpness of the press questioning might be blunted. Reporters wouldn't feel that they had only one shot at making the news. Iamb sure there's some truth to this, but at this juncture I don't think we're going to see a president who is willing to take the chance.
A person who is quick on his or her feet, and both eloquent and witty in their responses to tough questions is attractive, and certainly talented, but how important are those traits to a president.?
And let's be fair, are the ones who we all can agree perform well during press conferences doing so because they are providing meaningful answers to the questions or because they appear at ease and even in charge, all the while providing answers that dodge the questions?
The president and the members of his administration need to know that they will be subject to questioning, but I just don't know that the modern press conference is the best forum.
Perhaps a forum such as utilized in the UK where the Prime Minister takes questions from members of Parliament. Of course these sessions are more politicized than press conferences, and again, reward, the glib over the thoughtful. They're great to watch, but I don't know if anyone learns anything new from them and it's clear that the PM must spend an incredible amount of time preparing for them.
Just as television revolutionized the journalistic questioning of presidents, perhaps the internet can be a similar force, except that in such a forum anyone might be able to ask a question.
