Bush speech

[MikeH]

I was just going to post this in MOBIUS' thread. Re: the question he was asked.

If any British leader couldn't answer that, or at least waffle some kind of vaguely meaningful rubbish in response, they'd be crucified by the press and quite rightly.

It's the press's job to ask politicians difficult questions. Blair regularly has to set himself up for a grilling against opposition politicians (once a week in Prime Minister's Questions) and not quite as regularly but still relatively often in TV apperances where he is quite viciously grilled by journalists or even the general public. It's a vital part of politics.

If it's true that Bush has only had to face questions from the press 3 times in 4 years that's a ludicrous situation and shouldn't be allowed.

[Solly]

Why Mike? I think it's ludicrous that the media are allowed to set the agenda.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sava
stupid Bush... I have to wait until next week to see an all new 24 because of his stupid face.

24: Sunday, 9PM Eastern.


And Bush really, really, really sucked. He just does not do well in those sorts of situations... it is almost impossible to believe that his staff did not prepare him for some of those questions, which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that he WAS prepared, but just couldn't remember anything when the heat was on.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Why Mike? I think it's ludicrous that the media are allowed to set the agenda.

Yes. Of course you do. You basically believe in a police state so you would. I believe in freedom of information and governmental accountability. You can't just have the politicians telling people the things they want to tell them and avoiding any issues they don't like. That's ludicrous.

[Evil Knevil]

Elections with a toothless press= Egypt

Look how well they've turned out.

[Solly]

"Yes. Of course you do. You basically believe in a police state so you would. I believe in freedom of information and governmental accountability. You can't just have the politicians telling people the things they want to tell them and avoiding any issues they don't like. That's ludicrous."

The media have amazing control over people's lives these days: look at you, you're a child of the BBC. You believe everything they write and follow all of their slants and biases.

Worse, the media aren't elected. The media is not a force for good in the UK right now, yet they are slanting politics.

"Freedom of information" - opinions aren't information, yet that is what we get in every BBC piece.

I don't know what that police state nonsense is about.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


No one wants a straight answer. The press may find them boring to report (what's the angle?)-the Public is uncomfortable with people not playing their role (which is not supposed to be brutally honest), and the politicians have nothing to gain.

It is a question of good answers- answres that are a little informative, a little witty if you can but at least from the politician's viewpoint, and after all the president is the one who set this up, one that sells your message subtly-so people think you did answer, and you got the message accross.

Bush here was in full "sell message" mode, BUT he tried to do it without really taking into account the questions, whih is why he looked bad.

His general demeanor made him look bad too. Stuttering and stammering...long pauses...

Oh, and I am confident you have made mistakes too

[MikeH]

I don't read the BBC for news anymore, just check it for sport occasionally (and some of their amusing articles) . It's much too lowbrow and simplistic (and not left wing enough for me).The Guardian is much more in depth and makes more distinction between fact and opinion, and has much better arts coverage.

And I'm aware of the slants in what I read, I just enjoy reading stuff with a slant I agree with more than stuff that has a slant I don't agree with. What's wrong with that?

The police state stuff comes from your comments in the BNP thread about removing suspects rights and various other comments. It's basically correct and supportable with comments you've made I think.

[OzzyKP]

He got off to a good start with "insticate" Instead of "instigate"

[General Ludd]

I'm still waiting for a recording of this.

[Solly]

"The police state stuff comes from your comments in the BNP thread about removing suspects rights and various other comments. It's basically correct and supportable with comments you've made I think."

I said nothing about removing rights! Indeed, the BNP's policy would grant people additional rights to what they already have, i.e. fair treatment no matter what the colour of your skin (as in, abolishing "equal opportunities" rules decreeing that 7% of jobs have to be filled by ethnics even if none live there, and no such similar constraints in areas of 40% whites etc/quitting calling white on black crimes "racist" and Asian on white crimes (more common) as "unknown motives" ).

[MikeH]

What I hear:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Solly]

Exactly...a child of the BBC.

[MikeH]

What I can't understand is how you grew up watching Fox News.

[Arrian]

The Guardian is much more in depth and makes more distinction between fact and opinion

I didn't watch, but I've little doubt he sucked. It's been clear from the beginning that Bush is awful at public speech, and things have not been going well for him in general. As far as I'm concerned, the more press conferences & debates he goes in for, the better.

-Arrian