News Bush caught staging meeting with troops

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
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 [Broken]

Apparently they didn't realize that the coaching session was being broadcast via satellite to the news rooms. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
16
0
He should be impeached for misleading the public!!
 

rachmaninoff

What's wrong with this?
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
rachmaninoff said:
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 noone with a brain would except "honest dialog" when polticians go live on national TV. :rofl: 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.
:grumpy:
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
Except that the White House had just said it wasn't scripted. If it doesn't matter then why did they lie?
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
Theres a big difference between scripted and coached. If they told the troops exactly what to say and what to ask, thats scripted. If they are told what topics to talk about, thats coaching.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
10
Ivan Seeking said:
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 :rolleyes:

"cleary misleading the public"? Are you sure your the moderator of S&D? :tongue2: 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

Gold Member
4,854
10
rachmaninoff said:
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 thats 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

12
0
I'm still trying to figure out where "caught" comes in....
 
210
0
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 :rofl:
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,747
4,947
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
Last edited:
106
4
russ_watters said:
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. :biggrin:
 
106
4
russ_watters said:
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. :biggrin:
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
...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/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
147
0
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" goverment 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".

o:)
 
38
165
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
 
Last edited:

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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
russ_watters said:
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

Mentor
18,747
4,947
Moonbear said:
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
russ_watters said:
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.
 
691
1
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.
 
Last edited:

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).
 

Related Threads for: Bush caught staging meeting with troops

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
71
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
14
Views
6K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
102
Views
8K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top