Bush Interview on PrimeTime

sceptre

You know (nothing to do with mike's story but it's a good enough intro), I've been a wee bit too hard on Coleman above (as I mentioned it was written rather quickly (in about three minutes) after seeing the interview). I still reckon she was pretty nervous and that it showed but what really came out of the interview was the disparity between what she asked and what Bush answered. Some points for Coleman (not a lot but definitely some).

@ Angry Banana
Yeah, I'd agree with the guts of what you said there. I'd rather Bush did something rather than nothing, even with the kickback.

Big Ears

Coleman started every question with Mr. President , despite him not being her president . Mr. Bush would have been much more appropriate .

I also felt she didnt ask the hard questions but she didnt have to to make Bush look like an idiot , a lot of questions instead of answering directly he just started talking about something else that would have no/very little relevance to the question .

mike65

Originally posted by Big Ears
a lot of questions instead of answering directly he just started talking about something else that would have no/very little relevance to the question .

What?! Never! Sounds like any politico to me.

Mike.

flogen

I think Colemans problem is she's used to Irish and maybe British politicians... when you ask them a question, and they go off on a unrelevant rant, you can stop them, and press them harder.... but Mr. Bush expects you to ask a simple question, he gives you an unrelated answer and you dont say a word.... well maybe 'thank you'.

Bush doesnt work the same way as our politicians, sure, they both lie, but Bush doesnt get pressured into answering good questions.

While Coleman was nervous, I'd say it would have been much better if Bush had have answered her follow up questions, or maybe even her original ones.

flogen

chewy

ive been looking around at the american reaction to this weekend and thye've all gone mad over coleman.... serious all the dicussions forums ive been looking in mention that rude irish interviewer whos a disgrace to the nation....

ppl are logging on to indymedia to give reams of abuse about communist rte...


So Elisabeth Bumiller (NYT) called it "a hostile reception":
"But the president got a taste of his reception during a contentious
television interview broadcast here Thursday night on RTE, the Irish state
broadcaster. The reporter, Carole Coleman, began the interview by asking
Bush how it felt to come to Ireland knowing that the majority of the Irish
did not want him in their country."
http://www.iht.com/articles/526675.html

UPI found out it was a lack of "courtesy"
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040625-030647-7851r.htm

and Dam Froomkin (Washington Post) took it as "The Irish Incident".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5127-2004Jun25.html

Obviously, US politicians (and American readers/viewers) are
used to Larry King's "courtesy" style of interview instead of
Carole Coleman's (RTE) or Tim Sebastian's "Hard Talk" (BBC)
no matter whether it is a President or anybody else.

Mario Profaca
The Global Intelligence News Portal

shes also gotten loads of support and a mariage proposal....

Victor

And it emerged last night that presidential staff suggested to Ms Coleman as she went into the interview that she ask him a question on the outfit that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wore to the G8 summit.

Whoot! Some serious fluff there. :rolleyes:

mike65

I did'nt see the interview but I'm listening now and he started very badly by condesending to the Irish, proberly accidently but thats Bushs' trouble - he has no command of the language.

I think Coleman clearly had an agenda of her own which is the RTE agenda too it must be said, but he had'nt the wit to spot that or his advisers failed to "read" the likely
"hostile" attitude of Coleman/RTE.

"One of our greatest allies is your neighbour, Great Britain" Not very clever on RTE George!

Its over....

As a hard-hitting interview goes it hardly registered.

Mike.

chewy

just to round it up of cos it was sucha big non-story....

from indymedia.ie 160 commetns possibly longest thread ever?http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65723&condense_comments=false#comment80211

Reason why there are so many Right Wing Nuts on this topic..

There is a link to this indymedia story on www.freerepublic.com, the place where all the republican concubines hang out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160333/posts

one of the funniest things i heard was tha caorle as washington corrispondent had been living in america so long it had "got to her"....

i think the republicans first took note of her when she interviews colin powell a while back

i dunno why but indymedia.ie always comes up very high in search engines i not sure why....

i think indymedia.ie got a lot of attention cos people could leave their remakrs i would have love to seen a comment page on rte..... pity there isn't one

Reason why there are so many Right Wing Nuts on this topic..
by David Sunday, Jun 27 2004, 5:53pm


http://billmon.org/archives/001586.html

uaobrien

Originally posted by Big Ears
Coleman started every question with Mr. President , despite him not being her president . Mr. Bush would have been much more appropriate.

Not to nitpick, but Mr. President is the title you give to any president of any country, regardless of your country of origin. If the president is female (as in our case) it would be appropriate to refer to her as Madam President (unless you're on the Northside when Missus President or "The Oul' One from the Park" does fine )

You refer to the office not the man/woman.

uaobrien

Originally posted by flogen
I think Colemans problem is she's used to Irish and maybe British politicians... when you ask them a question, and they go off on a unrelevant rant, you can stop them, and press them harder.... but Mr. Bush expects you to ask a simple question, he gives you an unrelated answer and you dont say a word.... well maybe 'thank you'.

Bush doesnt work the same way as our politicians, sure, they both lie, but Bush doesnt get pressured into answering good questions.

While Coleman was nervous, I'd say it would have been much better if Bush had have answered her follow up questions, or maybe even her original ones.

flogen

I hate to say this (in fact I hate to say anything that makes Bush appear competent), but Coleman's problem wasn't that she thought she was talking to one of our politicians, her problem was she acted pig ignorant.

I'm in the middle of watching this interview, and I agree Bush hasn't got a clue about answering questions, but he's (I can't bring myself to type this) right in telling her to shut the hell up and let him answer the question. Its a funny little thing called common courtesy. If she's asking a question, she should have the courtesy to wait for the answer, not just blurt out the next thing on her list. She comes off as a total amateur.

My granny could have conducted a more professional interview and she's dead.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get rid of this slimy feeling that's just come over me.

Victor

Originally posted by chewy
http://billmon.org/archives/001586.html

And it's difficult for us to stay on topic.

sceptre

Transcript on the White House site for anyone who missed the interview and doesn't want to download a video the size of a postage stamp.

Orion

Originally posted by sceptre
Transcript on the White House site for anyone who missed the interview and doesn't want to download a video the size of a postage stamp.

Who the hell are Radio and Television Ireland?

Orion

Can someone please explain what this means? And where I can find it in any bible:

GWB: Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own.

Obviously the voice in the ear failed because this is on the same level as "fool me once etc".

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
Transcript on the White House site for anyone who missed the interview and doesn't want to download a video the size of a postage stamp.

I think it just got slash dotted.

Victor

Originally posted by Macros42
Can someone please explain what this means? And where I can find it in any bible:

I presume there are different translations but its along the line of "don't go pointing out splinters in other people's eyes when you have a plank in your own"

sceptre

Originally posted by Macros42
Can someone please explain what this means? And where I can find it in any bible:

I suppose it can be interpreted as "stop pointing out the little foibles of others while you're a much greater less than perfect chappie yourself"

Anyhoo, it's Matthew chapter 7 verses 3 to 5[1]

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Nicely, Bush is turning the thing around and saying that he's got the speck and we've got the log (or the plank, if they'll both fit in)

[1]Watch me, with the help of Google, turn into Dot Cotton

Victor

Different translation, different spin, similar idea.

http://www.acts17-11.com/discern.html

Mat 7:3-5 (Jer) "Why do you observe the splinter in you brother's eye and never notice the plank in your own? How dare you say to your brother, 'Let me take the splinter out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own? Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye."

This is not inconsistent with other Scriptures that instruct us to "judge" and help others be delivered from sin. The message here is to make sure you have been delivered first! Then, and only then, will you be effective at ministering to others. "Splinter removal", after all, is an important work of the church.

Trojan

Observations and questions:

- This interview started at 4:08, ended at 4:19 EDT - that's only 11 minutes - she was really pushed for time, and trying to get answers to her actual questions, not his sweet nothings

- Is there any point in conducting these interviews? Or the sham press conferences like Dromoland Castle? The respondants mouth empty phrases and prefabricated answers and it's hard to see their worth.

- I am concerned by the rise in SF popularity in the last elections. Yet I find myself admiring Adams, and comparing his public speaking and ability to respond to tough questions, to that of Bush, Blair and Bertie.

Winning Hand

Originally posted by Angry Banana
It hints that the money will go to American pharmacutecal companies (i.e. GlaxoSmithKlein who are basically dirty rotten bastards but they have a cure for HIV - they also make Aquafresh, Beechems, Lucozade and Ribena to name but a few)

First off GSK are a british american company. Secondaly there is no cure for HIV but with modern HAART (Highly Active Anti Retroviral Treatment) involving multiple drug regimens, usually two reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a protease inhibitor their treatment massively prolongs their life expectancy, provided the patients are compliant
GSK manufacture the original product of many of the anti-HIV drugs on the market, they were also the first to offer these drugs to third world countries at preferential treatment cost provided these governments set up facilities to provide medical treatment without which HIV resistance will skyrocket, rendering current treatment next to useless which these countries wont provide. The drugs even if they were provided free are useless without education, clinics etc. Who is expected to provide these? GSK are also one of the few pharmaceutical companies with a tropical diseases research division (malaria, leishmaniasis, river blindness, elephantiasis etc). So what makes them dirty rotten bastards?
http://www.gsk.com/about/pricing.htm
bit propaganda here but http://www.gsk.com/community/downloads/facing_the_challenge_one_year_on.pdf

Sorry for going off topic, did not see the interview

Victor

Originally posted by Winning Hand
So what makes them dirty rotten bastards?

Perpetuating the disease-cure cycle?

Or maybe that mega doses of Vitamin C shows substantial promise in the treatment of AIDS/HIV. But Vitamin C doesn't make abnormal profits for drug companies.

Winning Hand

Firstly how are they perpetuating the disease cure cycle?
And secondly where is the research stating that high doses of vitamin C are effective in the treatment of HIV? Does it alter the replication rate? Transmission Rate?
Notwithstanding Vitamin C is water soluble and thus is excreted if excesses are ingested.

DirkVoodoo

I think ppl are missing the big picture here...

Coleman, as mentioned above somewhere, had her own agenda, trying to do her best impression of a Jeremy Paxman style debator. Maybe she saw this interview as her meal ticket and that if she really tried to challenge bush she would be lauded as a hero(of sorts)

The real issue is that Mr.bush(little b for a big prick!) happens to be the most powerful man in the world and a big player with american corporations, seeing that they r his golfing buddies. Also someone said above that the american ppl are pretty piddled off about this interview. What Im trying to say is that Coleman's cowboy interview,while more pleasing to watch than a rehearsal which makes Bush look good, could in fact result in damage to our economy. Im not talking recession (duh!), but think of the tourism, american investment, etc. All of it is now tarnished by this interview

I think heads r gonna roll in RTE, starting with whoever the director of news is!

Sparks

Originally posted by DirkVoodoo
What Im trying to say is that Coleman's cowboy interview,while more pleasing to watch than a rehearsal which makes Bush look good, could in fact result in damage to our economy.

Yes, because we all know that groups like Haliburton, Enron, and so on, are all highly idealistic and will make multi-trillion dollar decisions based on a conversation over a game of golf instead of commissioning feasability studies, market surveys, cost-benefit analyses or any of that voodoo mumbo-jumbo...
:rolleyes:

Hobbes

Originally posted by sceptre
Transcript on the White House site for anyone who missed the interview and doesn't want to download a video the size of a postage stamp.

The written word seems to imply she butted in a lot, when it was clear that Bush had stopped talking or prehaps he had gone dumbstruck trying to understand what they were saying into his ear.

Here is an MP3 version...

http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rte-carol-coleman-bush.mp3

sceptre

Originally posted by DirkVoodoo
What Im trying to say is that Coleman's cowboy interview,while more pleasing to watch than a rehearsal which makes Bush look good, could in fact result in damage to our economy. Im not talking recession (duh!), but think of the tourism, american investment, etc. All of it is now tarnished by this interview

Oh for crying out loud (no, really!).

Let's ignore who was interviewed for a moment. Let's ignore who Coleman was employed by for a moment. You honestly believe that "reporter X" should be nice to "country leader Y" because of the tourism factor for "country of reporter X" if there is one?

Take a look at the bigger than your big picture for a minute. Because, while I recognise you've no great love for "leader X", your big picture doesn't seem to be all that big.

mike65

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=39&si=1206419&issue_id=11065

Ms Coleman's interview on RTE's Primetime programme, broadcast on the eve of the President's visit on Thursday night, has generated mixed reactions here and abroad by pundits and viewers alike who either viewed her aggressive stance as brave and unflinching or rude and unprofessional.

But according to hundreds of viewers who logged on the anti-war/establishment IndyMedia website last night, many normally media-sceptic respondents congratulated Ms Coleman for pulling off a coup - rattling a media-shy politician who rarely speaks to reporters without a carefully rehearsed script.

According to one respondent, Ms Coleman should be praised for interrupting the president during the 11-minute interview.

"At what point does an interviewee stop answering the question and start making a pre-prepared speech? The interviewer is perfectly entitled to interrupt and request that the question that was asked is answered."

The Guardian also praised Ms Coleman's interview. "Some claim the summit was tailored to give Mr Bush a pre-election media-opportunity for the 50 million or so Irish folk back home. But RTE's Washington correspondent, Carole Coleman, was not about to let Mr Bush off the hook.

"In an interview broadcast on television and a radio breakfast show she persisted with questions about dead US soldiers, torture, the issue of making the world a more dangerous place, and being disliked," it read.

Mike.

monument

GWB: Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own.

So, the US should mind its own business because their country is so feck up?... if only he would listen to his own advice.

comet

Just listened to the mp3, I thought Coleman was alright maybe the interruptions looked worse on TV. Strange thing was I thought Bush sounded ok for the first time ever, maybe its his face that makes him sound stupid, from now on i'll close my eyes when he comes on telly and just listen, maybe the world will feel like a safer place.

ChipZilla

I wish she had pulled him up on the democracy thing. That would have put him in his place.

Coleman:
"Sorry, but who told you Pakistan is a democracy? The leader's name is General Musharraf you dummy. He staged a military takeover in 1999."

Bush:
"???"