News Why are the public 9/11 hearings timed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Public 9/11 hearings are limited in time to prevent lengthy responses and potential evasion of questions, unlike private testimonies that allow for more extended discussions. The format of these hearings often leads to politicians prioritizing their speeches over substantive questioning, resulting in unsatisfactory answers. The presence of cameras encourages politicians to perform for the audience, which can detract from the focus on accountability. In contrast, private sessions lack this public spectacle, allowing for more direct and concise exchanges. The structure of these hearings is seen as a political exercise, with pre-negotiated conduct that influences how questions are asked and answered.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
Does anyone know why the public 9/11 hearings have a time limit, when the same people testified privately for much longer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the less time they take, the less chance of being caught in a lie...especially since people like Dr. Rice can make a simple yes/no answer take 10 minutes, without actually answering the question.
 
wasteofo2 said:
Does anyone know why the public 9/11 hearings have a time limit, when the same people testified privately for much longer?
Since they are just a political exercise (like a debate), everything about their conduct gets negotiated in advance.
 
russ_watters said:
Since they are just a political exercise (like a debate), everything about their conduct gets negotiated in advance.

The people answering the questions may be given them earlier (if that's what you meant), but it seems that a lot of the people on the pannel had to drop points that they didn't get answered satisfactorily.
 
It seemed to me that very often those who were responsible for the questioning were in fact more concerned with giving their own little speaches.
 
wasteofo2 said:
The people answering the questions may be given them earlier (if that's what you meant), but it seems that a lot of the people on the pannel had to drop points that they didn't get answered satisfactorily.
I didn't mean they were exactly like debates, just that there are similarities - kat has a good point, they are also like most other things done on the floor of Congress: everything anyone says is a speach designed to generate soundbytes for their campaign. And yeah, its often funny when a question doesn't get answered the way the questioner wants it: the questioner often ends up with their foot in their mouth and tail between their legs.
 
wasteofo2 said:
Does anyone know why the public 9/11 hearings have a time limit, when the same people testified privately for much longer?

The answer to your question is there in in the question itself. If you put a TV camera in front of a politician and give them as long as they want to talk you'll be waiting forever for them to shut up. Behind closed doors there's nobody to play to and they get to the point sooner.
 
Back
Top