Feeling left out, Canada finds its own Sarah Palin (botched interview)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


He used past and present tense in the same sentence and the "clarifcation" was the damn same question/problem. You and I understood what the interviewer was after but english is our first language.

This is the exact original question, word for word:

"If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?"

It's pretty explicit that he's asking what would you do now. He literally says "now". In the first clarification, he clarifies "what would you do today?" His aids clarify the same thing. He still doesn't get it.

You just can't defend this. It's pure and epic failure when it comes to basic communication. If he can't have a real discussion with a simply-worded English sentence with a native anglophone who speaks slowly and enunciates properly, how the hell can we expect him to have meaningful conversions with other ESL leaders from around the world? Or even leaders like Bush...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Can you cite evidence CTV said it would not air the interview?

What the video shows is something very different than what you are claiming. Dion doesn't specifically say they promised not to show it too, just that it was assumed by his "can we try again?" comment...

Erm, the anchor says at the beginning that CTV initially indicated they wouldn't air the false starts, but that they later changed their minds.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


This is the exact original question, word for word:

"If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?"

"now" - present tense
"would you have done" - past tense
"has not done" - past tense

Does he mean "if PM today" (if so then past tense confuses - he couldn't do it two weeks ago as he wasn't PM), or did he mean "if PM two weeks ago" (if so present tense confuses). It was a **** question. Admit it.

edit - to address your edit...

The second question poses the same problem. Two **** questions in a row. This guy isn't getting the big promotion to Toronto.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Erm, the anchor says at the beginning that CTV initially indicated they wouldn't air the false starts, but that they later changed their minds.

Fair enough, I just skipped to the juicy parts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


"now" - present tense
"would you have done" - past tense
"has not done" - past tense

Does he mean "if PM today" (if so then past tense confuses - he couldn't do it two weeks ago as he wasn't PM), or did he mean "if PM two weeks ago" (if so present tense confuses). It was a **** question. Admit it.

The problem with this is it would've been fine had he just said he didn't understand the question right away and got the clarifications. He tried to bull**** (contrary to Fake Boris' claims), then asked for clarification -- the clarification was provided. Then he still didn't understand it for the next two times.

That's the problem here.

[Wezil]

I agree the man has problems with english but I think it BS to skewer him when the question was so badly worded. The clarifications were of little use as they were posed in the same fashion.

Yes, Dion should have made sure he was understanding the question properly between takes and he didn't. That doesn't excuse the questioner for failing to understand the difficulty with the question he was asking and find a better way to rephrase it. Combine a poor interviewer with a man not completely fluent in a second language and this is the result.

[Asher]

Here's a transcript of his answer for people who seem to think the question is the problem:

"I would start the thirty fifty plan that we want to start the moment that we'll have uh, uh liberal government. And the thirty fifty plan uh, the thirty, uh, in fact the plan for the first thirty days I should say, the plan for the first thirty days once you have a liberal government -- can we start again?"

He clearly understood the question after the clarifications (which did take a while). He just couldn't think of what he should say. He knew he had a plan of some sort, but that was about it. He almost got on the right track of talking about the Liberal plan to "do something" in contrast to the interview pretext of Harper's government "doing nothing". He just didn't know what to do.

[Q Classic]

I bet Dion secretly hates Canada. He probably doesn't even go to Tim Horton's.

[Wezil]

He was answering the "what if" in the present tense. Make me PM today and he'll start the 30 day consultation he has been campaigning on. This was not what the interviewer was after which led to Dion's hesitation.

[Fake Boris]

dp

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


This is the exact original question, word for word:

"If you were prime minister now, what would you have done about the economy and this crisis that Mr. Harper has not done?"

It's pretty explicit that he's asking what would you do now. He literally says "now". In the first clarification, he clarifies "what would you do today?" His aids clarify the same thing. He still doesn't get it.

No.

The interviewer uses the present perfect.

From wikipedia:

In English, the present perfect has perfect aspect, which means that it is used to refer to a subject's past actions or states while keeping the subject in a present state of reference or in a present state of mind. Therefore, in English, the following logic helps to understand the tense: Think of the words in the construction separately: "have" (or "has") is in the present, and the past participle is in the past. For example, "I have gone to the cinema" implies that the subject has completed a certain action (this is what "gone" relates), but that the subject is, in a sense, "holding" or "possessing" that completed action in the present time (this is what "have" relates). In other words, the subject is in a current state (now), and a past action that the subject has done or a past state that the subject has been in, is being referred to from the current state of the subject, which is the present time. This differs from the simple past tense, i.e., "I went to the cinema", which implies only that an action happened, with the subject having no relationship at all to the present.

The present perfect describes an action that occured in the past, but is relevant today. It is often not clear when in the past the action has occured:

http://www.better-english.com/grammar/pspp1.htm

We normally use the Present Perfect when we want to talk about about something which happened in the past but is relevant now. Often we use words like just/already/not ...yet with the Present Perfect.

I feel really tired. I've just finished my report.
I haven't spoken to Brian yet but I've already spoken to Malcolm.

We also use the Present Perfect to talk about an imprecise time in the past but as soon as we become precise we switch to the Past Simple.

Thus Dion wanted to know what period of the past the interviewer was referring to.

Feel free to blame him for knowing more about English grammar than you do. After all, English classes are just GPA boosters.

Which might be true, once you've bothered to master 8th grade grammar, though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Feel free to blame him for knowing more about English grammar than you do. After all, English classes are just GPA boosters.

It's something that is taught in elementary school, not university.

"Do we really want more of this"? Sorry for the pun.

But it is important that our Prime Minister have strong communication skills. Period. This interview shows anything but. You can shove all the excuses you want out there, the fact is he looked like a bumbling idiot who has zero confidence. "Not a leader".

[Wezil]

Oncle - Easy now. I'm on your side and 8th grade grammar (if that is what you posted) is beyond me. I think I hit on the same problem in my <8th grade way however.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil
Ninot - We are exact opposites on this apparently. Do the conservatives have any chance in your riding?

If he lives where I think he lives, no. I suspect the Greens have a better shot

edit: Hmm... ok, maybe I misremembered the results from last time. In 2006 the Libs won 46% to 18% against the Conservatives, with 15% for NDP, 12% to the Bloc, and 8% to the Greens.

Still, I don't think I could even name the Conservative candidate this time around, based on a general lack of posters and my personal disinterest in voting Conservative.

[Wezil]

Hmm. I was thinking a vote swap but that is a pretty solid liberal riding. The conservative could possibly be the benefactor of vote splitting in my riding.