Atrios reports that the White House have lodged a complaint with the Irish Embassy over the “disrespectful’ interview by an Irish journalist discussed yesterday. Mere journalists apparently aren’t allowed to interrupt the President when he’s trying to make a point. Nor are Presidents supposed to have to defend their policies against vigorous critique. Kieran posted on this rather bizarre feature of US public discourse last year - as he says, it smacks more of feudalism than democracy. Indeed, as in feudalism, the respect only goes one way - the vice-president seems to feel quite entitled to tell his critics to go fuck themselves, and not to apologize for it afterwards.
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?
As has been mentioned before, I think a lot of us would pay good money to watch Paxman take Bush apart on prime-time TV.
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.
Hey, I’m a Bush supporter and I think a protest to the government is a bit absurd. The protest should rightly have gone to her employer directly.
And the problem is not that the interview may have been hard-hitting — the problem was the rudeness of the interviewer. 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.
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.
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, it seems a bit rich to have complained about this.
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.
Maybe RUDENESS is the flavour of the day (June 25, 2004)? It is a problem when journalists call you the worst president ever (March 7, 2003), but then you can control those domestic ones more easily. It is of course very rude indeed to sack people like Valerie Plame, one of your own people, in a fit of pique (October 11, 2003). Maybe it was rude to ignore your allies “Bush needs the allies he ignored before war” ( June 25, 2004), and then ask them for cooperation later. “He who lives by unilateralism, dies by unilateralism”.
Taking a leaf out of this analysis of a coming information war (26, June,2004), maybe it is an INFORMATION CRISIS, rather than a rudeness crisis. If he had had a good answer, then he wouldn’t be so worried how eager the journalist would be, as in the end the journalist would look foolish.
The words “WMD”, “Torture” have acquired new meanings over the last year:
WMD = single old sarin shell,
Torture = does not include painful activites where the primary / specific intent is something other than inflicting pain,
Respect = ??
So when we talk about changing the tone, what we really mean is that “respect” is not asking difficult questions. RESPECT runs both ways. We can assume that if Bush and Cheney must not be asked about Halliburton and Iraq, then can we have a list of topics about which we must not worry our heads? Respect = trust the government = government filters out bad news. Something very reminiscent of LBJ. Richard Clarke has already highlighted this trend: Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings (May, 6, 2004). Truly excellent milestone video from the Bush campaign, administrators are running around straightening out deck chairs while the Titanic goes down: GWB is optimism , steady leadership and progress.
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.
sorry, of course I meant… ‘Please, you ask the questions and I’ll answer them’ (around 19 minutes).
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.
If Ms. Coleman is supposed to respect Bush and let him finish his “dubyaspeak” shouldn’t he respect her and the viewer and answer the g.d. question?
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 fail to see anything wrong with a culture that bids journalists to respectfully treat the people they are interviewing.
Oh, I do. As Jon Stewart noted on Larry King’s show — and King is a chief villain here, for his supine deference — politicians didn’t know how to handle TV in 1960, but now they have not just the training to flannel interviewers, but can also play on the overweening egos of network anchors with the magic word, ‘Access’. It’s a corrupting relationship.
So, bugger deference. The prez doesn’t have to face congressional scrutiny. He has people around to make sure that the soles of his shoes never touch the dirt. Since when does he have the right to demand the ‘Very good, Mr President, please say “strong leader” another five times’ treatment from a member of the foreign press?
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.
The point re: Congressional scrutiny is a good one.
Here in the UK the Prime Minister has to go before Parliament for Prime Minister’s Questions and get righteously savaged both by the opposition and by his own backbenchers. It’s utterly unthinkable that anyone could reach a position of major political prominence here without the ability to think on their feet and to answer their critics.
In the media there are also venues such as Newsnight, the Today program and Question Time on which all major political figures might be expected to appear from time to time - and receive a thorough grilling from combative interviewers (on the first two) or members of the public (on the latter).
This isn’t just a presentational point re: the relative slickness of the politicians. It’s a substantive one too. In between elections just about the only way to hold politicians to public account is in precisely this kind of way. There’s something wierdly undemocratic and ‘regal’ about an elected leader not called upon regularly to justify their actions and the actions of their government in a public forum. [And scripted press conferences with tame journalists are hardly the same thing…]
Of course the USA is particulalry unusual in this respect in the sense that the US President (of whatever political persuasion) is accorded considerably more leeway and deference in this respect than any European leader.
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?
I haven’t yet listened to the exchange, but the audio is posted on a prominent American website, Lucianne.com, as an example of Euro-rudeness.
It is true that the press in Ireland and England are much more confrontational than ours (ours don’t ask much, they just draw their own conclusions out of whole cloth).
This is similar to Bill Clinton’s grilling and subsequent meltdown on Panorama last week. No journalist in the U.S. ever dared confront him on his tawdry little personal life.
And a P.S.
I suspect that this report of a formal complaint will turn out to be false.
Craig Howard - what color is the sky in your world? I remember reading the paper every day in the 90s, and it was all about Bill Clinton’s tawdry personal life. That’s the only thing the U.S. Media paid any attention to.
And if Bill Clinton had a “meltdown”, then George W. Bush spontaneously combusted.
Bill Clinton didn’t have a meltdown on Panorama!
Far from it.
What bizarre parallel universe are you in?
First, I agree the protest is silly. You don’t want a Euro-style interview—don’t sit for one.
Second, however, I think that such interview practices are only slightly more preferable than the American practice of Dowdifying interviews (see, e.g., Tom Brokaw’s recent interview with Pres. Bush).
In any event, at least one observer thought Bush did a good job.. and that he should engage in such interviews more often.
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.
I agree with the comment of chris, namely, if you don’t want a Euro-style interview-don’t sit for one. It appears doubtful that there is a ruder or less intelligent press anyplace in the world that can hold a candle to those dumber than shit ones from the British Isles. And, don’t get me started on the alcoholic ones from Ireland.
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.
if only the press were as nice as dave then there wouldn’t be any problem.
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…
Remember Silvio Berlusconi’s speech to the pretty genteel European Parliament when Italy took over the EU chair? Faced with heckling from a Green German MEP, he blew up and compared his challenger to a concentration camp guard. It tells you a lot about the man’s cosseted environment at home.
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?
we dont know what the complaint was about - maybe they were complaining that the Irish taxpayer (inlcuding US company’s) are forced to pay for Ms Colemans monologue?
I don’t think many companies will be complaining about the amount of tax they have to pay the Irish government.
The complaint was made to the Irish Embassy because it had informed the White House that RTE is a legitimate news organisation.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review