4 ms·
Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question: "But has FISA court turned dow
by spikels 13y ago
Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question:
"But has FISA court turned down any request?"
We get this answer:
"The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion."
Just blather, incoherence and grasping at straws. C'mon man you went to Columbia and Harvard Law, you give speeches almost every day - you can do better.
How about "yes", "no" or "I don't know" next time.
- javert 13y agoThe inarticulate, chopped-up sentences are one thing. But he's always been really big on the doublespeak, in my opinion.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoThe inarticulate, chopped-up sentences are just an artifact of the article's author purposefully being nasty to Obama. Everybody talks like that; it's just not quoted as a matter of course.
- MDCore 13y agoI think it makes more sense to say the author is writing it like that to show that Obama was stumbling with his words in response to a "yes/no/I don't know" question. That's useful information that I appreciate the author conveying.
- thaumasiotes 13y agoThe problem here is that that information is being conveyed solely through contentless innuendo. You can expect the same level of disfluency from a softball "How awesome is your new program?" "So awesome" Q&A session. People only think this transcript shows Obama stumbling with his words because they aren't aware that printed media cleans up the natural disfluencies that occur in speech. This transcript looks highly unusual, but that isn't because Obama's false starts and stops are unusual (they aren't). It's because it's unusual for them to be printed in a quote. Thus, the conclusion that the author is malicious. An attack on Obama for refusing to answer the question is fine. An attack on him for speaking like a normal person in a spoken interview makes no sense.
- MDCore 13y agoI think your response is valid and an excellent counterpoint. I would only disagree by pointing out that the President of the United States is not a normal person merely having a spoken interview. He's known as an excellent orator -- that's an important part of his job --, his speeches are carefully crafted and as you (seem to) say this is a softball interview. With all that in mind, why is he stumbling over a seemingly simple question?
- bjourne 13y agoCouldn't it just be laziness? Is it customary to clean up someones speeched transcript so that it reads better in written form?
- thaumasiotes 13y agoIt's not just customary; it is very much against standard practice not to do it. You want to see what people actually say? The Nixon tape transcripts famously didn't clean the speech.
- rooshdi 13y agoYea, it does sidetrack from the substance of the discussion.
- angersock 13y agoNo, people that get flustered or that aren't practiced at speaking talk like that. Basic speech trick is pausing for a second, thinking through your answer, and then giving it carefully. This gives you time to avoid null words and ums and false starts. If you're the POTUS, I'd be more than happy to give you a little time to think over your answers about surveillance questions before you bumble through them.
- weland 13y agoThis is the thing I hate about media. Charlie, dude, you're the moderator. You're a journalist who's been schooled and has tens of years of experience in the field, whose duty is to inform your viewers/readers about current events. If they aren't informed, ask the fucking question. "But has FISA turned down any request?" "The -- because -- whatever". "Ok, so has it turned down any request?"
- jacobolus 13y agoCharlie Rose gets lots of inside access and high-powered guests because his MO is to kiss up to powerful people, ask softball questions, and follow whatever plan he made for the interview, regardless of the answers he gets. He almost never asks useful follow-up questions, often doesn’t seem to pay any attention to what his guests have to say, and asks lots of moronic paragraphs-long yes-or-no questions (my favorite answer to one of these was from IIRC Bill Joy from maybe 15 years ago “[3 second pause] Well, Duh.”). As an interviewer qua interviewer, he’s the worst in public broadcasting. But of course, his show is still sometimes worth watching, because he ends up getting lots of great guests.
- bcit-cst 13y agoI cant disagree with you more . I am long time hn lurker and this is my first post. I have been religiously watching Charlie Rose for the last decade . He is one of the best interviewers in the game . I learned more about the NSA surveillance program from this one hour interview than every other newsgroup ( tv , reddit , hn etc ) combined over the last week. He really is a genius . He gets more out of the guest than anyone else. People sometime think that interviewer should be aggressive try to catch the interview off guard , make home slip etc. This approach doesn't help anyone.The guest just become defensive and tries to pick and chose every word while the interviewer just comes off the as dick. I takes a long time to appreciate Charile's Rope-a-dope style of interviewing.He just keeps sucking up to the guest lets him get through all of their talking points they have memorized and then the magic happens.
- jacobolus 13y ago