Monday, May 10, 2004
Clueless Questioning Watch
Survey after survey points out that the American people no longer trust or respect mainstream media.
If any reporters are wondering why that's the case, let me refer you to Exhibit A: a transcript of a recent White House press conference.
Press Secretary McClellan has just finished addressing a very en pointe question on whether the mobsters who mutilated four Americans in Fallujah will be brought to justice.
And then, he gets this:
Q The New York Times reports that the President told Arab TV that the abuses in the Iraqi prison, in his words, "does not represent the America that I know." The Washington Post reports that our National Park Service has just spent $5 million for an interpretive center at Manzanar National Historical site, where a California historical plaque says it was a concentration camp for Japanese Americans during World War II. And my question: Does the President believe there is any evidence at all that President Roosevelt, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, and the U.S. Supreme Court ever condoned any actual concentration camps?
Where in the world did THAT come from? Do you think maybe that reporter didn't quite check all his baggage at the door?
The room basically laughs off the question. So the reporter, taking the hint, restates the question:
Q They spent $5 million on this. Does he believe there's any -- that we had concentration camps? Does the President believe we had concentration camps in the United States?
Now, why the President's National Park Service would conceivably spend 5 million bucks on an interpretive center at a concentration camp that didn't exist is beyond me. But that's not what the reporter's looking for, is it?
More:
Q Scott, there's a segment of society that differs with the White House as it relates to these pictures and the investigation of the U.S. soldiers' conduct to include Rush Limbaugh who, Tuesday, agreed with the caller, equating the pictures to a college fraternity prank, and said the U.S. soldiers should not be punished because it was an emotional release as they were letting off steam. What's the White House say about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the White House says what we said yesterday and what the President has said over the last few days.
Q No, but Scott -- no, seriously. This man is a conservative --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I actually got asked a question earlier today about that matter.
Q But none --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I addressed it then.
Q But if you stand out strongly trying to let the Arab world know that this is wrong and then you have the proverbial spokesperson for the conservative party saying this, doesn't that send a mixed message?
Two comments: First of all, the Administration has been very clear both in its statements condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib and in its actions in relieving the commanding general and other officers and preferring courts martial in several cases. The public messages coming out of the Administration itself are anything but mixed. And there was never anything I received from the chain of command that would give the slightest indication that classified documents were communicating anything differently behind the scenes.
The second comment, though, is that you would have to be pretty &#^@ing STUPID to confuse Rush Limbaugh with "a spokesman for the conservative party," and to try to hold the White House--ANY White House--accountable for the proclaimations of a radio show personality.
More:
Q As a manager, how could -- as a CEO, as he [Bush] likes to fancy himself, of this administration, how could he have confidence in one of his -- let's call them corporate vice presidents for allowing a situation like this to blow up in their face?
Attention clueless one: It isn't that the President likes to fancy himself the CEO of this administration. The President literally is the CEO of the administration, genius. And let's not call a cabinet member a 'corporate vice president.' He's not. He's a cabinet member, or the Secretary of Defense.
See, before you deign to condescend, it's important that you ensure the person you think you're condescending to isn't actually more plugged into reality than you are.
Also, click on the link for more evidence of the current 'apology fetish' sweeping the White House press corps. It's dysfunctional. It's like Kevin Kline's character in "A Fish Called Wanda."
If you recall, Kevin Kline's character, Otto, was obsessed with obtaining apologies from everyone else in sight, but was pathologically incapable of uttering an apology himself.
Here's a hint, gang: Otto was a laughingstock.
Splash, out
Jason
If any reporters are wondering why that's the case, let me refer you to Exhibit A: a transcript of a recent White House press conference.
Press Secretary McClellan has just finished addressing a very en pointe question on whether the mobsters who mutilated four Americans in Fallujah will be brought to justice.
And then, he gets this:
Q The New York Times reports that the President told Arab TV that the abuses in the Iraqi prison, in his words, "does not represent the America that I know." The Washington Post reports that our National Park Service has just spent $5 million for an interpretive center at Manzanar National Historical site, where a California historical plaque says it was a concentration camp for Japanese Americans during World War II. And my question: Does the President believe there is any evidence at all that President Roosevelt, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, and the U.S. Supreme Court ever condoned any actual concentration camps?
Where in the world did THAT come from? Do you think maybe that reporter didn't quite check all his baggage at the door?
The room basically laughs off the question. So the reporter, taking the hint, restates the question:
Q They spent $5 million on this. Does he believe there's any -- that we had concentration camps? Does the President believe we had concentration camps in the United States?
Now, why the President's National Park Service would conceivably spend 5 million bucks on an interpretive center at a concentration camp that didn't exist is beyond me. But that's not what the reporter's looking for, is it?
More:
Q Scott, there's a segment of society that differs with the White House as it relates to these pictures and the investigation of the U.S. soldiers' conduct to include Rush Limbaugh who, Tuesday, agreed with the caller, equating the pictures to a college fraternity prank, and said the U.S. soldiers should not be punished because it was an emotional release as they were letting off steam. What's the White House say about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think the White House says what we said yesterday and what the President has said over the last few days.
Q No, but Scott -- no, seriously. This man is a conservative --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I actually got asked a question earlier today about that matter.
Q But none --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I addressed it then.
Q But if you stand out strongly trying to let the Arab world know that this is wrong and then you have the proverbial spokesperson for the conservative party saying this, doesn't that send a mixed message?
Two comments: First of all, the Administration has been very clear both in its statements condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib and in its actions in relieving the commanding general and other officers and preferring courts martial in several cases. The public messages coming out of the Administration itself are anything but mixed. And there was never anything I received from the chain of command that would give the slightest indication that classified documents were communicating anything differently behind the scenes.
The second comment, though, is that you would have to be pretty &#^@ing STUPID to confuse Rush Limbaugh with "a spokesman for the conservative party," and to try to hold the White House--ANY White House--accountable for the proclaimations of a radio show personality.
More:
Q As a manager, how could -- as a CEO, as he [Bush] likes to fancy himself, of this administration, how could he have confidence in one of his -- let's call them corporate vice presidents for allowing a situation like this to blow up in their face?
Attention clueless one: It isn't that the President likes to fancy himself the CEO of this administration. The President literally is the CEO of the administration, genius. And let's not call a cabinet member a 'corporate vice president.' He's not. He's a cabinet member, or the Secretary of Defense.
See, before you deign to condescend, it's important that you ensure the person you think you're condescending to isn't actually more plugged into reality than you are.
Also, click on the link for more evidence of the current 'apology fetish' sweeping the White House press corps. It's dysfunctional. It's like Kevin Kline's character in "A Fish Called Wanda."
If you recall, Kevin Kline's character, Otto, was obsessed with obtaining apologies from everyone else in sight, but was pathologically incapable of uttering an apology himself.
Here's a hint, gang: Otto was a laughingstock.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Great post, I enjoyed reading it.
Adding you to favorites, Ill have to come back and read it again later.
Adding you to favorites, Ill have to come back and read it again later.
Learn how to quickly create an RSS feeds with our RSS feeder, for high link popularity and ultimately better search engine rankings.
# posted by 
: 5:39 AM
: 5:39 AM
This is a very nice site. I was out looking for "bead sandals pattern" and found your blog in the process.
Best of luck.
Post a Comment
Best of luck.
# posted by : 4:58 AM
: 4:58 AM
