News Bush caught staging meeting with troops

[Ivan Seeking]

CBS) WASHINGTON It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

The event was aimed at countering the steady stream of violent images that emerge daily from Iraq as insurgent bloodshed continues and both American and Iraqi security forces hunker down for the referendum this weekend, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan reports

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/topstories_story_286115638.html

Apparently they didn't realize that the coaching session was being broadcast via satellite to the news rooms.

 

[ron damon]

He should be impeached for misleading the public!

 

[rachmaninoff]

What's wrong with this?

 

[Pengwuino]

What's wrong with this?

Everything! Bush did something that every modern president/politician has done on a near daily basis! Impeachment!

 

[rachmaninoff]

What's with the sarcasm? I'd sort of hoped that no one with a brain would except "honest dialog" when polticians go live on national TV. Same reasoning as applied to, say: talk shows aren't live, reality TV is scripted, and "4 out of 5 dentists" don't really recommend that miracle toothbrush being advertised.

On the other hand, shame on the networks for giving this airtime, at the expense of real journalism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Except that the White House had just said it wasn't scripted. If it doesn't matter then why did they lie?

 

[Pengwuino]

Theres a big difference between scripted and coached. If they told the troops exactly what to say and what to ask, that's scripted. If they are told what topics to talk about, that's coaching.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Theres a big difference between scripted and coached

There is a difference; how big is another issue. Still, the WH misrepresented the conference and now has egg on its face, once again, since they were clearly misleading the public. This was touted as something other than it was.

Again we hear excuse after excuse for having no ethics. No wonder Bush got elected.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I'm not distressed that a major poltician would be doing this. What distresses me is most networks package this as 'news' and distribute it unquestioned. When I watch CNN* it sounds like this:

"Senator Smith tells news conference: gravity a 'myth' (also ahead: why one expert disagrees)".

That's a hyperbolic example, of course.

*rarely

edit: IMO, there's no important difference between a 'guided' (coached) conversation and a literally scripted one. They're both controlled forms of communication which work great if a politican wants to advertise his/her policies. But if they show up on a news channel whose purpose is to inform civilians about how effective a hundred-billion-dollar war is, that's propganda. In fact, anytime an 'ordinary Joe' is giving his opinion* on CNN, I see a failure of journalism to be intellegent and discretionary.

*which was, in effect, what this teleconference was trying to be

 

[Pengwuino]

There is a difference; how big is another issue. Still, the WH misrepresented the conference and now has egg on its face, once again, since they were clearly misleading the public. This was touted as something other than it was.
Again we hear excuse after excuse for having no ethics. No wonder Bush got elected.

Ideologs at their finest

"cleary misleading the public"? Are you sure your the moderator of S&D? What an exageration... I've never heard you say any democrat mislead the public when they forge documents or say 'yes' and do 'no' which makes me wonder exactly what you're definition of "misleading the public" is.

 

[Pengwuino]

edit: IMO, there's no important difference between a 'guided' (coached) conversation and a literally scripted one. They're both controlled forms of communication which work great if a politican wants to advertise his/her policies. But if they show up on a news channel whose purpose is to inform civilians about how effective a hundred-billion-dollar war is, that's propganda. In fact, anytime an 'ordinary Joe' is giving his opinion* on CNN, I see a failure of journalism to be intellegent and discretionary.

*which was, in effect, what this teleconference was trying to be

Well if that is your definition, EVERYTHING on every news channel is propoganda. If you're going to have someone come on and give a positive view of say, brazil, you're going to bring a brazilian diplomat or something. For the negative, you bring some other guy on who you know will have hte negative view. Complete coaching but I don't understand how that's defying journalistic integrity.

What happens if you start bringing in random people? "So we're going to discuss the oil crisis in America. Here with us is an English professor from chico state and here is a project manager from Sony"

 

[kat]

I'm still trying to figure out where "caught" comes in...

 

[Anttech]

What happens if you start bringing in random people? "So we're going to discuss the oil crisis in America. Here with us is an English professor from chico state and here is a project manager from Sony"

sounds reasonable to me

 

[russ_watters]

Except that the White House had just said it wasn't scripted. If it doesn't matter then why did they lie?

Wait, where in that article does it say it was scripted? All it says it they rehearsed the sequence of questions so that people would pass the mic around smoothly. Unless I missed it, it does not say the answers to the questions were written out or scripted (edit: or "guided").

Ivan, rachmaninoff, it does not say the answeres were "guided" or "coached" (those words do not appear in the article) and the person saying they were "scripted" is a spokesperson for an anti-war website.

This looks like a knee-jerk reaction by CBS to something that is SOP for news conferences and interviews of all types.

What am I missing?

 

[deckart]

Wait, where in that article does it say it was scripted? All it says it they rehearsed the sequence of questions so that people would pass the mic around smoothly. Unless I missed it, it does not say the answers to the questions were written out or scripted.
Ivan, rachmaninoff, it does not say the answeres were "guided" or "coached" and the person saying they were "scripted" is a spokesperson for an anti-war website.
This looks like a knee-jerk reaction by CBS to something that is SOP for news conferences and interviews of all types.
What am I missing?

Right on the nose. You aren't missing anything.

 

[deckart]

Wait, where in that article does it say it was scripted? All it says it they rehearsed the sequence of questions so that people would pass the mic around smoothly. Unless I missed it, it does not say the answers to the questions were written out or scripted.
Ivan, rachmaninoff, it does not say the answeres were "guided" or "coached" and the person saying they were "scripted" is a spokesperson for an anti-war website.
This looks like a knee-jerk reaction by CBS to something that is SOP for news conferences and interviews of all types.
What am I missing?

Right on the nose. You aren't missing anything.

 

[Gokul43201]

...except perhaps, for this :

From the White House Press Briefings; transcript of briefing on Oct 13, 2005 :

Q: But we asked you specifically this morning if there would be any screening of questions or if they were being told in any way what they should say or do, and you indicated no.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's what the question was earlier today. I think the question earlier today was asking if they could ask whatever they want, and I said, of course, the President was -- and you saw --

Q: And I asked if they were pre-screened.

MR. McCLELLAN: You saw earlier today the President was trying to engage in a back-and-forth with the troops. And I think it was very powerful what Lieutenant Murphy was saying at the end of that conversation, when he was talking about what was going on in January, how the American troops and coalition forces were in the lead when it came to providing security for the upcoming election, an election where more than eight million Iraqis showed up and voted. It was a great success.[...etc. etc.]

There is no transcript of what happened "earlier" in the White House website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/

 

[jimmie]

He should be impeached for misleading the public!

Perhaps the "public" was "mislead" the moment the "government" was 'invented'.

Perhaps the "public" believed that the "government" acted in the best interest of the "public".

Perhaps the "public" IS many more individuals than what the "public" orginally 'thought' the "public" 'was'.

Perhaps every "government" that acts with only the particular "public" in mind, leads the minds of the particular "public" astray in an "other" unique direction, thus rendering all individuals within that particular public "mislead".

Perhaps the "public" ought to consider having their minds lead in "one" direction.

Perhaps the "public" ought to consider a different, "new" form of "government".

Perhaps the "government" itself ought to be "impeached".

Perhaps a "true" government shall preclude the possibility of the "public" being "mislead" and being obligated to analyze and discuss the actions of the "president", rather than their own actions, to determine whether or not those actions are "right", when the particular "government" and particular "public" that he respresents, is NOT "right".

 

[edward]

Make what you want of it, the sceniaro was rehearsed with the soldiers before Bush entered the room. But then again those who say that this has become common practice in recent years are right, especially in the last five years.
The Pentagon was not about to take a chance on another "Rumsfelf hillbilly armor" type of event happening.

By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a carefully scripted event, a handpicked group of U.S. troops told President George W. Bush what he wanted to hear on Thursday -- that Iraqis were eager to vote on a new constitution this weekend.

During the practice session before Bush entered the room, a senior Pentagon official, Allison Barber, stood at the podium and queried the troops about topics the president later asked about, including the training of Iraqis and the level of progress. At her prompting, the soldiers raised their hands when the topic they were to answer came up.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-13T192009Z_01_WRI356359_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-BUSH.xml&archived=False

 

[Informal Logic]

What are you missing? In addition to a record of media manipulation FAR BEYOND previous levels, Bush has worn out his use of photo ops and friendly audiences - Though the military is probably becoming a little less trustworthy, so probably needed to be screened and rehearsed just a bit.

 

[Moonbear]

Wait, where in that article does it say it was scripted? All it says it they rehearsed the sequence of questions so that people would pass the mic around smoothly. Unless I missed it, it does not say the answers to the questions were written out or scripted (edit: or "guided").
Ivan, rachmaninoff, it does not say the answeres were "guided" or "coached" (those words do not appear in the article) and the person saying they were "scripted" is a spokesperson for an anti-war website.
This looks like a knee-jerk reaction by CBS to something that is SOP for news conferences and interviews of all types.
What am I missing?

Seems a bit hypocritical of CBS to criticize for "staging" (however you want to interpret it...scripting, preparing, screening, etc) the news report. I have first-hand experience that CBS does the very same thing in interviews. "Can you wear a shirt with the name of the college on it?" "We should stack up those big science textbooks on the desk behind you." "Here's what we're going to ask you..." (Yes, I got about 2 of my 15 minutes of fame on CBS...for a 2 minute segment, it took them 4 hours of setting up!)

 

[russ_watters]

Seems a bit hypocritical of CBS to criticize for "staging" (however you want to interpret it...scripting, preparing, screening, etc) the news report. I have first-hand experience that CBS does the very same thing in interviews. "Can you wear a shirt with the name of the college on it?" "We should stack up those big science textbooks on the desk behind you." "Here's what we're going to ask you..." (Yes, I got about 2 of my 15 minutes of fame on CBS...for a 2 minute segment, it took them 4 hours of setting up!)

Well of course they do. That's standard operating procedure for conducting an interview. And that's just it: they should practice their interviews if they want them to go smoothly! They should read the questions to those being interviewed so the interview-ees can practice their responses. That's how you make an interview work! The only time you don't is if you intend to try to trip-up the interview-ee!

 

[Moonbear]

Well of course they do. That's standard operating procedure for conducting an interview. And that's just it: they should practice their interviews if they want them to go smoothly! They should read the questions to those being interviewed so the interview-ees can practice their responses. That's how you make an interview work! The only time you don't is if you intend to try to trip-up the interview-ee!

I agree. It's natural to get nervous when the news crews show up, so unless you're trying to make someone look like a complete fool, you give them a chance to rehearse, or do a pre-interview so you can be sure you both know what the questions are that will be asked. So I'm not sure why this is a news-worthy issue as long as he wasn't feeding them answers. Of course, if he's meeting with military and he's commander-in-chief, then it's certainly within his powers to give them orders to say what he wants said. The military isn't stupid when it comes to being a good PR machine.

 

[faust9]

Russ, Kat, anyone else: Have you SEEN the rehersal or are you protecting the shrub for no real good reason?

Allison Barber used the term "scripted" for god's sake. Wake up people! Stop apologizing for Bush.

 

[Informal Logic]

There is a big difference between an interview that is granted by a guest versus speaking to an audience. Even if there is Q&A with the audience, such as WH briefings, it is presented to the viewer as an impromptu forum (and why Gannon was a such a scandal).

 

[Gokul43201]

Seems a bit hypocritical of CBS to criticize for "staging" (however you want to interpret it...scripting, preparing, screening, etc) the news report.

Did you miss the part where Scott McClellan told the press that the teleconference was not pre-screened ? Why say that ?!

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Kat, anyone else: Have you SEEN the rehersal or are you protecting the shrub for no real good reason?

Allison Barber used the term "scripted" for god's sake. Wake up people! Stop apologizing for Bush.

All I have seen is the clip in the link in the OP. Allison Barber doesn't use the term in the article or in the 2-minute clip. Where can I see what you are referring to?

Did you miss the part where Scott McClellan told the press that the teleconference was not pre-screened ?

Yes, I did - where can I read/hear that? What you provided does not have that part.

I suppose I could just give the reporter, who would have his career made by tripping Scott McClellan up, the benefit of the doubt based on what you quoted, but I'm not inclined to do that.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a big difference between an interview that is granted by a guest versus speaking to an audience. Even if there is Q&A with the audience, such as WH briefings, it is presented to the viewer as an impromptu forum (and why Gannon was a such a scandal).

Haven't you ever seen a reporter interview a group in a news magazine? That is essentially what Bush was doing. I don't see why anyone would assume that it was meant to be entirely extemporaneous - and that appears to be what people are doing. Presidents pretty much never say anything extemporaneous.

 

[Moonbear]

Did you miss the part where Scott McClellan told the press that the teleconference was not pre-screened ? Why say that ?!

I didn't see that part either. In the video clip, all they said is that it was rehearsed, not scripted. From what they showed, it seemed like they were just identifying who would answer what questions...if anything, it was probably to give Bush a Cliff's notes to remember who was who and call them by name. Nothing indicated they had told them what to answer.

Actually, if the cameras were rolling and they DID tell them what to answer, wouldn't that seem to be the best clip to include? If they didn't include it, maybe it's because no such thing actually happened.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm reading through this thread, and in addition to the clip I see evidence presented in post #17 with transcripts from the White House in which Scott McClellan appears to be flip flopping, and quotes from Reuters in post #19 referring to the event as "a carefully scripted event, a handpicked group of U.S. troops" that is prompted to answer accordingly.

This may well be exaggerated. But the problem is Scott McClellan has flip flopped so many times, and the White House has meddled with the media so many times, anything that even remotely smacks of more of the same is going to be called into question. They have lost credibility, and they have only themselves to blame for it.

Then of course there are those members who claim they don't support Bush, but inevitably defend everything he and his administration does, often to the point of laughable reasoning--rather suspicious.

 

[faust9]

All I have seen is the clip in the link in the OP. Allison Barber doesn't use the term in the article or in the 2-minute clip. Where can I see what you are referring to? Yes, I did - where can I read/hear that? What you provided does not have that part.
I suppose I could just give the reporter, who would have his career made by tripping Scott McClellan up, the benefit of the doubt based on what you quoted, but I'm not inclined to do that.

I find it odd that you responded to this thread with such certitude without having seen either of the events in question.

We'll start with the a polished news article(not a lot of info but a good picture that will come up a little later). The lady in the lower left is front row will become a sticking point here in a few days I'll bet.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

Here's what CNN reported(Scotty boy is featured here---I'm looking for the full press conference):
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The%20Situation-Room-staged-Iraq-troops-photo-op.mov

NBC has a little more:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/NBC-Nightly-NewsTroops-staged-photo-Op-10-13-05.mov

Take note of this comment from Allison Barber

ALLISON BARBER: If he gives us a question that is not something that we've scripted...
The presidents comments were scripted.

Now, back to the little miss in the front row: Who the heck is she? Well, the Village Voice has a little insight.
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001948.php

Nothing like sticking a Military PR professional into a crowd of battle hardened Officers. I don't recall any enlisted among the group. I guess they do crazy things like ask tough questions to high ranking politicians (remember the Rumsfeld armor question).

Anywho, here's the Press conference transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051013-2.html

The president was scripted and the responses were coached---contrary to the WH description of the event. As a former military man you should be outraged at how the WH is using these photo-ops and troop events to bolster their lagging poll numbers.

[edit]Ms. Lombardos Division.
http://www.42id.army.mil/newsstory/2 IA Graduation.htm

Note the "42nd Infantry Division Public Affairs" right above the picture.

Olbermann has the press conference.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Bush-staged-photo-op.mov

 

[Astronuc]

Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, mentioning "if he [Bush] gives us a question that we have not scripted . . ." - well all it means is that it is not so spontaneous and people have been presumably been prepared for his questions . . . .

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4957379

It is also reported on NPR - and one can hear Allison in her own words . .

Under - The President's Videconference
Click on - Hear the Rehearsal

 

[faust9]

Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, mentioning "if he [Bush] gives us a question that we have not scripted . . ." - well all it means is that it is not so spontaneous and people have been presumably been prepared for his questions . . . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4957379
It is also reported on NPR - and one can hear Allison in her own words . .
Under - The President's Videconference
Click on - Hear the Rehearsal

Yes, but this was billed as a spontaneous "back-and-forth" between the president and some troops. What we go was a staged production were the president was told what to say and the military members were coached to prevent them from leaving the "script"; moreover, they threw a PR professional into the mix!

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, I did - where can I read/hear that? What you provided does not have that part.

It was the link titled "Press Briefing Oct 13, 2005" on the page I linked to.

Anyway, here you go : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051013-2.html

 

[russ_watters]

I find it odd that you responded to this thread with such certitude without having seen either of the events in question.

I responded to the thread after reading the link and watching the video in the OP. That was the only evidence provided. Am I supposed to do the research the original poster didn't provide, to prove his case for him?

You threw a lot of links at me just now - I'll go through them tomorrow. The only one I looked at was Gokul's - it was a full transcript of the second press conference, where the reporter tries to nail McClellan. It isn't much new, except that it expands on what you posted earlier, Gokul, and confirms what I suspected: It is much clearer from that link than your previous one that the reporter is trying, and failing to put words in McClellan's mouth.

It would be helpful, guys, if you could simply provide one direct quote that makes your point, rather than making me search for it.

 

[russ_watters]

Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, mentioning "if he [Bush] gives us a question that we have not scripted . . ." - well all it means is that it is not so spontaneous and people have been presumably been prepared for his questions . . . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4957379

Ok...it wasn't completely spontaneous. Is that a surprise? Is that wrong? Bush has a speechwriter(probably more than one) . Of course someone else wrote the questions! Why is that a revalation?

Lets stay on point, here: what would be bad about this is if someone told the soldiers what to say. Is there any evidence of that? Or worse, people are using the word "scripted". That's a pretty specific word: it means that the soldiers said word-for-word something someone else wrote down in a script. Is there any evidence of that?

edit: I've finally seen the quote from Barber (faust's post). It says that Bush's questions were scripted. Again, duh...?? Once again, he has a speechwriter. He's a politician. What is unusual about that?

[edited]

 

[russ_watters]

Looking back at page one, though many people use the word "scripted" to describe the event in general, no one discusses whether the answers were scripted except me. The quote from Barber says the questions were scripted. I find it hard to believe, but I must ask: is this entire bruhaha about the fact that someone wrote the questions out for Bush or did people really mean that they thought the answers were scripted? The tone of page one certainly implies to me that people thought the answers were scripted.

Ivan's quote uses the word "coaching" and Ivan repeats it. It is clear from the links that the "coaching" of the answers is limited to sequencing, not the content. Ivan's post implies wrongdoing, which would have to mean the answers were coached. Ivan uses the word "scripted" in his second post. By then, the implication that the answers were scripted is more clear. Indeed, since pretty much every word any President ever says is scripted, the only way for this to be newsworthy is if it were the soldiers who were scripted.

 

[russ_watters]

Moonbear asked, but maybe I'll get a response where she didnt:

Is there a quote that says that the soldiers' answers were scripted?

 

[GENIERE]

...Is there a quote that says that the soldiers' answers were scripted?

No, but that's not relavant to the liberal thought process. You must try to understand the liberal mind. The liberal is controlled..
[edit] I figured I would do little research before I tried to explain but when I Googled for "liberal mind", the first hit revealed that the "Liberal Mind" was under new management"
Hopefully, the new management does a better job.
...

 

[rachmaninoff]

I'm amazed with you all. Here we have happy, smiling soliders on television spreading disinformation about a horrific war, and you narrow in on whether or not the press secretary initially admitted that it was scripted? We're lacking perspective.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm amazed with you all. Here we have happy, smiling soliders on television spreading disinformation about a horrific war, and you narrow in on whether or not the press secretary initially admitted that it was scripted? We're lacking perspective.

You need to search through Penguino's posts and you will come upon one where he says that liberals and conservatives are both immoral, or something to that effect. He reasons that conservatives are comfortable with it, while liberals are in denial.

That is the only reasoning that makes sense as to why they would accept direct evidence that they are being deceived with the attitude, of... Duh.. like you didn't know?...Isn't our president wonderful.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm amazed with you all. Here we have happy, smiling soliders on television spreading disinformation about a horrific war, and you narrow in on whether or not the press secretary initially admitted that it was scripted? We're lacking perspective.

So true. To your point, a quote from below: “You and I are talking about stage craft instead of about how motivated the troops are.” In addition to this point, the president and his administration lied to start the war, and have kept lying ever since--this is just more of that MO. The seriousness of the chain of lies is tremendous.

Focusing on flip flops by the press secretary is not as disconcerting as those who think it's okay that he flip flops, and worse that Bush lies to the American people. Over and over, a main defense is that this is common in politics so what's the big deal? (I'm certain this would not be argued if it was a president these people didn't support. ) For those who constantly excuse the acts of the current administration, the report below addresses exactly that showing how “this White House has taken staging to a whole new level.”

BROWN: In "Wag the Dog," a Washington insider recruits a Hollywood producer to produce a war. I'm in show business, the producer says. Why come to me? War is show business, the insider replies. And besides, we're not going to have a war. Just the appearance of a war.

Well, in Iraq, we do have a war. Also, at times it turns out, the appearance of show business. We saw a bit of it this week and we also saw the machinery backstage. That's part of a larger story, call it the opening act. Here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is what American viewers were supposed to see, the president talking with American officers serving in Iraq. Getting some spontaneous, upbeat assessments. This is what they weren't supposed to see. Defense Department official Allison Barber running through what sounded like a meticulous rehearsal, previewing who would get which questions and how they would be answered?

ALLISON BARBER, PENTAGON OFFICIAL: And in the last 10 months, what kind of progress have we seen?

GREENFIELD: Including guidance on what to do if a spontaneous moment, in fact, popped up.

BARBER: If there's a question that the president comes up with that we haven't drilled through today, then I am expecting the microphone to go right back to you, Captain Kennedy and you to handle.

MIKE ALLEN, "TIME MAGAZINE": This is embarrassing for the White House. It was unintended. You and I are talking about stage craft instead of about how motivated the troops are.

GREENFIELD: For "Time Magazine's" Mike Allen, the idea the White House stages an event is about as shocking as a revelation that the sun rises in the east.

ALLEN: Any White House, not this one in particular, is about control. These people just seem to be better at it.

GREENFIELD (on camera): Which may be the real story here. That a White House that has managed to launch a thousand stories about its carefully-staged events and its carefully-crafted photo opportunities managed to pull off a carelessly staged event.

One thing for sure, any indignation about a White House that stages the news comes about a century too late.

(voice-over): It was President Roosevelt, Theodore, not Franklin, that brought the press photographers along on hunting and camping trips making his vigor and physicality a key element in his political appeal. Those endearing pictures of John Kennedy's family didn't happen by accident but politicians have gotten a lot more blatant about it.

Back in 1972, Republican officials were embarrassed when the press got hold of a script for one of their convention nights. Spontaneous applause moments and all.

By 1996, Democratic operatives briefing the press every day about their scripted convention moments. The Clinton White House took some heat in 1994 when critics charged they staged an emotional moment at a D-Day commemoration at Normandy with President Clinton forming a cross out of stones.

But this White House has taken staging to a whole new level. From the mission accomplished presidential landing aboard an aircraft carrier in 2003.

BUSH: Thank you very much.

GREENFIELD: To town hall meetings and other events where pay they had to sign pledges that they were in fact backing the president. As a tactical matter, it has worked. Until recently when a series of events seemed to have gone awry. This picture of president bush looking down at Hurricane ravaged New Orleans last month seemed to symbolize not engagement but distance.

Repeated visits to the Gulf and the highly dramatic solo walk to the podium from magically lit Jackson Square in New Orleans did not improve the president's job approval numbers.

BUSH: Good evening.

GREENFIELD: Some have even suggested that the entanglement of Karl Rove and other White House aides with the grand jury investigation may be distracting the political team.

(on camera): Or maybe it's just a case of trouble begetting trouble. The country is in a pessimistic mood. Iraq remains troubled. Gas prices are high. The president's Supreme Court pick has angered the base and now inflation may be rearing its ugly head again. As basketball legend and philosopher Bill Russell once said, when things go bad, they go bad. Even public relations.

Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/14/asb.01.html

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, never mind. I don't even want to get involved in this discussion.

I watched Wag the Dog last night. A delightful movie.

 

[edward]

scripted by any other name is still......

What ever you want to call it. According to this link, it was scripted. The whole reherseal was mistakenly sent to the news media via satellite feed.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?101305/fr_pentagon_101305&FOX_Report&Meeting%20Rehearsed&acc&U.S.%20%26%20World&-1&col

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

"If he gives us a question that is not something that we have scripted, Captain Kennedy, you are going to have that mike and that's your chance to impress us all. Master Sergeant Lombardo, when you are talking about the president coming to see you in New York, take a little breath before that so you can be talking directly to him. You got a real message there, ok?"

 

[Burnsys]

The other day i saw in tv (I think it was cnn) president bush with a hammer building houses in new orleans! What a patetic piece of propaganda.

 

[edward]

Moonbear asked, but maybe I'll get a response where she didnt:
Is there a quote that says that the soldiers' answers were scripted?

Yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?101305/fr_pentagon_101305&FOX_Report&Meeting%20Rehearsed&acc&U.S.%20%26%20World&-1&col

 

[solutions in a box]

Why was this so hard for some to believe? Everthing Bush does in a public format is scripted, rehearsed, and staged. It has to be that way or the guy continually keeps putting his
foot in his mouth.

This is no big secret, or perhaps some people just don't want to believe it, but it started shortly after 9/11. By that time it was obvious to his handlers that, except for one liners, Bush was not capable of handling unrehearsed extemporaneous discussions.

I would be the first to admit that he has improved tremendously over the last few years. Perhaps his PR people should have more confidence in him.

After watching the FOX news clip it appears that there are some people at the Pentagon who are really miffed about soldiers being used as stage props.

 

[russ_watters]

"If he gives us a question that is not something that we have scripted..." [emphasis added]

I can't seem to get the Foxnews video to play, but I'll take your word for it that that is what was said. So how does a quote about the questions being scripted imply that the answers were scripted? Does that link show soldiers holding scripts?

 

[edward]

I can't seem to get the Foxnews video to play, but I'll take your word for it that that is what was said. So how does a quote about the questions were scripted imply that the answers were scripted? Does that link show soldiers holding scripts?

It plays rather sporadically? The soldiers are not holding scripts. I don't think that the soldiers would have gone along with that. The woman in charge of the "rehearsal" even used the term script.

It does say that the FOX News sources at the Pentagn were "livid" about soldiers being scripted and rehearsed.

There are a number of clicklable videos and transcripts in the link below. You have to watch some ads before most of them play. Even the one below may show a "Dell window" which must be closed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

 

[kat]

"Master Sergeant Lombardo, when you are talking about the president coming to see you in New York, take a little breath before that so you can be talking directly to him. You got a real message there, ok?"


great advice to someone who doesn't normally make their living by being on t.v...sorry..don't see a problem with this one in particular.