Noblesse d’Etat

Even assuming that the interview was “disrespectful” enough to be objectionable, why is it a matter to take up with representatives of the government of Ireland?

My dear Irish friends, do you not known that that questioning our “dear leader” is to give comfort and support to the terrorist? That is very un-American of you Irish folk.

On the other hand, most of her ‘interruptions’ came during long pauses when it looked like George had finished parroting his replies – replies that generally ignored the question that was asked. And he constantly cut into her questions before she finished asking them!

Considering that George paraphrased that auld biblical injunction about not taking specks from others’ eyes while ignoring the plank in your own, that’s a bit rich.

If you don’t interrupt them, they’ll be making endless propaganda speeches instead of answering questions. Good interviewers always interrupt, and I don’t see why Bush is so special.

In fact, what’s rude is reciting some endless irrelevant bullshit in response to a direct question.

We all heard that Saddam is a bad person, you know. I wish he’d tattoo it on his forehead so we don’t have to hear it anymore.

bq. You should not interrupt answers from the person you are interviewing — and that rule should be followed with particular scruples when that person is a major world leader commenting on important international events.

Nonsense. A good interviewer at best has to manage the time used in an interview. Bush comes off as a rambling half-wit, incapable of answering questions asked, and incapable of making any points concisely; he should be grateful to be interrupted; if he’d gracefully answered the questions in a manner respectful to the audience he’d have come off much better. If I were him I’d do everythign possible to prevent his voters from seeing the interview, rather than publicising it like this. My wife always tells me Bush is stupid; until seeing this interview I (being an admirer of his father) gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do hope that his private conversations are nothing like this.

Actually, I just rewatched and noticed the bit where he asked her a question, and then interrupted her answer saying ‘Please, you ask the questions and I’ll answer them (around 19 minutes)’. OF course, the supine US press will give him a free ride on this.

I don’t want to defend the indefensible — lodging a diplomatic protest over an interview is rather silly — but I fail to see anything wrong with a culture that bids journalists to respectfully treat the people they are interviewing.

This does not mean that Presidents do not have to “defend their policies against vigorous critique” — unless vigorous critique involves rudeness and repeated interruption so as to prevent you from answering the question.

Kieran reproduces a portion of an interview from Tony Blair on the entry you linked to, citing it as an example of a useful debate not available in the US. I don’t see it that way — Blair manages to say a sentence or two before being cut off and bombarded with something new — all the public gets is a series of snippets none of which amounts to a substantive answer.

The comparison between the Bush interview and Cheney’s “fuck off” comment is just bizarre — one is between a journalist and a politican and the other is between two politicians — the same code of behavior does not apply to both.

Don’t be silly. Have you ever encountered an elected politician – in any party – who always answers a straight question with a straight answer?

You see, when all politicians are slippery and evasive, it’s not so much of an electoral liability(1) – whereas answering with a true but embarassing answer could be a huge vote liability.

(1) Unless you are very dumbly evasive and are against an opponent who is very cleverly evasive, I suppose. But even then, it could go either way…

I saw the interview, and thought Ms. Coleman did a fair job, although I wish she would have tried harder to keep him on point. But obviously, Bush has a couple of problems with a real interview: 1) He is not smart enough to answer tough questions on the fly, even questions that were submitted in advance, thus he must recite lines from his grab-bag of non-sequitous gibberish and stall for time; and 2) Bush sees himself as a regal figure, not just above the law, but also above having to justify his actions to America or to the world.

Coleman’s questions were mostly of the form “Lots of people don’t like what you’re doing, Mr. President, how do you respond to them?” That’s a batting-practice pitch, an open invitation to blather. (“Well, Carol, I’d say that I’m doing the right thing and the good thing and the thing that needs to be done.”) And Bush still manages to come away from the session traumatized by the way the interviewer occasionally starts to say “But…” in the middle of the blather?

And a P.S.

I suspect that this report of a formal complaint will turn out to be false.

Bill Clinton didn’t have a meltdown on Panorama!

Far from it.

What bizarre parallel universe are you in?

It’s a good thing the interruption caused such a stir, because the interview itself was shat.

Like Colemen said, the questions were approved by the whitehouse 3 days in advance, this wasn’t a serious interrogation. It’s only because the press is so managed and lifeless that this comes across as a gripping interview worthy of note.

As for someone’s comment above, yeah Paxman’s job on Blair was much better, but still left a LOT to be desired. Still, you gotta start somewhere.

Hilarious that Craig Howard compares Clinton’s alleged “meltdown” to Bush’s embarrassing little fit of pique. Clinton calmly chided his interviewer for wasting such a large percentage of his face time rehashing the Monica Lewinsky affair — as if it was some sort of scoop! If you can’t tell the difference between Clinton’s performance and Bush’s pathetic meltdown in the face of a real journalist, you’re hopeless.

In reality, however, I think that Craig and all the other Bush apologists know exactly what a failure they have in W — but they perceive some personal gain from having the chimp stay in office. So they’ll screw the rest of us.

It’ll be a long, hot summer as we see how far the wingnuts will go to retain raw power, er, I mean the reins of prudent and well-reasoned governance.

I’m in agreement with Greg who posted much earlier… As I watched the interview I felt Ms. Coleman only “interrupted” when she could hear The Chimp winding down his blather. But, after the first time, it almost seemed he was setting a little trap for her. As soon as she’d jump in he’d reprimand her. Then, in his arrogant, smirky, elitist way, sniff in the air and add some additional Politbureau propaganda. It didn’t have to make sense (Pakistan a democracy? the world a safer place? )… it didn’t have to be on topic… it just had to… um… fill time.

… And I, too, was incredulous at that plank-in-your-eye chestnut he spouted… Why doesn’t America fix its own schools, its own prison system, its own economy, its own corruption etc. etc. before deciding to invade another country in the name of “freedom”. Sheesh… excuse me while I puke….

— after reading the posts on the interview I was expecting some hard hitting questions and a real exchange — I was underwhelmed by it all… The Chimp can only rhyme of passages learned by heart — he cannot give a thoughtful or insightful answer because, of course, chimps aren’t capable of that…

Haven’t seen the interview so can’t comment on how rude it was. But as a journalist. I observe that a lot of reporters –– usually from the BBC or one of the chattering classes papers –– ask questions that actually contain the answers they want to get. When your questions are longer than the answers and don’t get you anywhere, you’re just screwing up. It’s spectacle, not interviewing. Paxman’s show is about Paxman’s views, not the person he’s grilling. I fully support the pursuit of a probing line of questioning. But that is a subtle art rarely seen now. Rudeness is self-defeating.

The funniest unintentional self-parody of British journalistic technique I’ve seen is the question hurled at the unsuspecting Tony Blair, as he headed for a Euro meeting: “Do you have blood on your hands, Prime Minister?”

That is not a question expecting the answer yes or no, obviously; it is a not very veiled accusation.

Blair didn’t reply, but the reporter had had his moment. Of what value is this to the inquiring viewer?

I don’t think many companies will be complaining about the amount of tax they have to pay the Irish government.