Reporters asking dumbass questions during a war

[Vympel]

(YellowTimes.org) -- The typical Washington press briefing -- whether from the White House or Pentagon -- generally displays one dominant characteristic: a notable lack of useful or new information. As of late, the presence of a barely disguised hostility and contempt towards the attending reporters is also quite noticeable.

Reporters are at least half the reason why press briefings are usually a waste of time -- Washington's press corps simply ask the most meaningless, non-confrontational questions imaginable. What is worse is when, after the fact, correspondents or pundits talk about how the reporters in attendance "pressed the issue" or "touched sensitive areas." Such comments further obscure the fact that the real questions are not asked and powerful figures in Washington are not held accountable for what they say.

Today's briefing presented by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers was no exception.

After opening statements from Rumsfeld and Myers, the groveling reporters squealed from their seats, "Mr. Secretary," "General," like a gaggle of pre-pubescent boys trying to win a chance to kiss the prom queen. Rumsfeld continued the simile with his tough guy responses and general air of disrespect.

One of the first questions Rumsfeld faced was: "Mr. Secretary, two quick ones, if I may. Did you have information--"

The Defense Secretary quickly reprimanded the questioner for wanting to ask two questions: "With all this crowd, why don't we just try one?"

After, quite naturally, ending up asking multiple questions anyway, the reporter was reprimanded further by Rumsfeld: "I thought we agreed on just one."

While tone of voice cannot be conveyed through the printed word, the environment Rumsfeld attempts and succeeds to create is one of sheer intimidation.

Some of the "pressing" and, indeed, almost rhetorical questions asked include:

"Do you plan to try and move quickly to stop [the setting afire of oil wells]?"

"f indeed we missed Saddam last night, what does that do to the Iraqi spirit?"

"Is it also your hope that some elements of the military might remove Saddam themselves?"

There was also the following exchange:

Rumsfeld: The fewer [Iraqi defectors] there are, the risks that it will be broader and more difficult, take more time, and more lives will be lost.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what evidence do you have that it's actually working, that there are actually Iraqis who are heeding this call to--

Rumsfeld: We have evidence.

Q: And what sort of evidence is that?

Rumsfeld: Good evidence.

This coming from the same administration that recently presented forged documents to the United Nations Security Council as the key evidence in its campaign to prove that Iraq had revitalized its nuclear weapons program.

Rumsfeld also made a highly questionable comment regarding the depth of the "coalition of the willing." Reuters news agency picked up on this and has already released an article refuting his claim.

Rumsfeld said, "The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

Reuters skillfully pointed out that "But the facts put out by the administration itself suggest otherwise.

"In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.

"In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain and Australia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.

"U.S. officials have named 33 countries which support the U.S. invasion of Iraq but this includes countries which are providing overflight and basing rights and which are giving only diplomatic or political support for the invasion.

"President Bush said on Wednesday that 35 countries have chosen to 'share the honor' of supporting the campaign but U.S. officials could not name more than the 33.

"They say some 15 other countries are cooperating with the U.S. war effort behind the scene, mostly by giving access to bases and airspace, but they do not want to be named.

"In 1991 the United States and its allies did not count countries which provided overflight rights or political support because the campaign had the overwhelming support of the U.N. Security Council, which had voted 12-2 for the use of force."

Arguably, the most significant thing uttered during the entire briefing was this chilling threat from the Defense Secretary: "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that has been beyond what has been seen before."

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

[Crown]

I don't really blame the reporters, I mean it's not as if the Administration has to actually justify its self to anyone.

[MKSheppard]

(YellowTimes.org) -- The typical Washington press briefing -- whether from the White House or Pentagon -- generally displays one dominant characteristic: a notable lack of useful or new information. As of late, the presence of a barely disguised hostility and contempt towards the attending reporters is also quite noticeable.

They asked dumbass questions:

I'd have asked.

"Mr Secretary, how are our forces doing? Have we sustained any casualties?"

[Iceberg]

Just offhand, I'd say that the photos of guys in Iraqi uniforms surrendering is pretty good evidence that the Iraqi armed forces are paying attention to the "surrender and live" option.

[Col. Crackpot]

As much as i dislike Reichsmarshall Rumsfeld , i do love how he puts reporters in their place.

[Crown]

As much as i dislike Reichsmarshall Rumsfeld , i do love how he puts reporters in their place.

Please see this thread to see why this, from an Australian point of view, a very 'different' opinion...

[theski]

And this is different from any other ADMIN

[Vympel]

And this is different from any other ADMIN

If you read the link Crown posted, you'll know that it is VERY different from Australia and the UK, for example.

As I said on that thread- no fawning, pussy-foot around, cult of personality surrounds our public figures- when they're right in front of reporters- being embarssed by their obvious ineptitude.

[theski]

Sorry I ment any othe US admin..

[Crown]

Sorry I ment any othe US admin..

That is why the I love the Westminster form of government. We know the politicians are morons, and we love seeing them flat-footed and embareced at every turn.

[Crown]

Sorry I ment any othe US admin..

That is why the I love the Westminster form of government. We know the politicians are morons, and we love seeing them flat-footed and embaressed at every turn.

[Zoink]

I must give *some* credit to CNN. Who did a piece on war propaganda, and made it clear that reporters have to report *who* said what exactly, and not simply report what they heard.

An example of this in action: that main war anchor guy on CNN (forget his name) cut-off a correspondant, following the Fletcher announcment. The correspondant said [paraphrase] "Fletcher has confirmed we're at war"... and he got cut-off, the news anchor dude said "I heard that disarmament has begun, not war, now while we can imagine what this implies, I just want to make it clear on what was actually said" .... good job. Somebody payed attention during journalism class.