A Journalist with a Set of Balls
by matt at 7:45 am on December 19th, 2003 in MediaIn a previous entry we discussed the media, patriotism, responsibility, and the the pathetic job that the press has done since September 11th.
One of the things that has been lost in the post September 11th is the art of the follow-up question. The President does a fair amount of speaking to cameras, but the vast majority of the time he doesn’t take questions. In the rare instance that he conducts press conferences, they produce little if any news. Even rarer are the occasions when he sits for a one-on-one interview, and most of those are with Fox News or other Rupert Murdoch-owned outlets. None of this is an accident. The President’s schedule is carefully managed to avoid having to answer any tough questions.
Tuesday night in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, The President faced his most direct and unrelenting questioning since taking office in January 2001.
Sawyer repeatedly asked about conflicts in intelligence and statements made by the administration about WMD. I’m not sure which questions the President was answering, but I can promise you that he wasn’t answering the questions that Sawyer asked.
DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.
DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I’m telling you — I made the right decision for America —
Then, there is this gem:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what’s the difference?
We’ve grown to expect this kind of evasiveness and word games from Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration, but when the President follows suit, it rises to a level of dishonesty and manipulation that should cause concern.
I was pleasantly surprised with the tenacity of Sawyer’s questioning. She had to know that forcing the President into a corner and at least partially exposing his lack of a good explanation would probably be the end of her one-on-ones with him. But what’s the point of access if you only repeat the administration line? It has been too long since anyone other than Chris Matthews tried to force someone off of their talking points. It took balls to make that someone the President.
Bravo to Diane Sawyer for doing her job the way it should be done.
tom wrote:
in case you missed the story on cnn.com, that paris hilton show beat out the interview with the prez by like 800,000 viewers. i love this country.
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 8:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
800,000 people who don’t vote, I bet.
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 8:50 am ¶
rob wrote:
thanks for bringing this up. i was dumbfounded by his “what’s the difference” response. without going into it too deeply, or making myself sick, i can’t fathom the studpidity of a person who is directly responsible for putting so many americans in harm’s way answering a question like that (when so many americans have died for it). what’s the difference? tell that to all those who lost their husbands/wives/brothers/sisters, etc. for this fucker’s stupid, greedy, little gambit.
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 2:57 pm ¶
acme wrote:
Anyone know where I can see that interview? “what’s the difference”!!!!!!! Oh my god!
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 3:18 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Try here.
Under “Politics” there is a link. I haven’t tried to watch it online…
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 3:27 pm ¶
The Dell Dude wrote:
When you say the press has sucked since 9/11, I can only assume you’re talking about the major media outlets and those with the closest relationship to the White House. No argument there. Reporters take the word of politicians as fact. They consider a press release as the final say on a matter. There’s too much reporting of press conferences and not enough analysis of what’s being said at those press conferences.
Here’s the silver lining: we live in the Internet Age, and there are an infinite number of news resources and points of views. Right, left, middle, it’s all there. Many people discovered the BBC during the war, as a way to get the news without the sense you were listening to the home team play-by-play announcer. Since the major news channels and sources have failed us, it’s about time people look elsewhere for real news.
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 5:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Agreed.
But while you and I and many people we know try to get their news from several sources, the vast majority of people still get their news from the 3 networks, local radio stations(most affiliated with the networks in one way or another), and cable news. Fox News’ success has scared CNN and MSNBC into submission.
What percentage of US citizens even consider regularly getting news from an overseas outlet? I’d love to know, but my guess would be less than 5%.
The airwaves are the property of the people, and the networks never had to pay for them. We aren’t being served, and it doesn’t seem likely that this will change anytime soon.
Posted 19 Dec 2003 at 6:01 pm ¶
Greedo wrote:
Yeah, I love the Beeb, especially since they have been pro-Saddam throughout the entire war and masking it beneath the guise of neutrality.
Recently an internal BBC email tells its reporters not to refer to Saddam as a dictator.
From the Daily Telegraph’s London Spy column:
“An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator,” I’m told. “Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It’s all rather ridiculous.”
Under these guidelines of “neutrality”, I guess Hitler wouldn’t have been called a “dictator” either, since he was originally elected in a freer election than Saddam. Great logic Beeb.
Posted 22 Dec 2003 at 7:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
Pro-Saddam?
Posted 22 Dec 2003 at 8:51 am ¶