White House compounds PR gaffes

[RandFan]

Not in my case. My ambition is to be right. My preferences have as little to do with it as I can manage, and I've spent decades searching for my prejudices and assumptions and binning them. I want to be right. By so doing I demonstrate my genetic fitness and get to mate with fit women. Not being physically prepossessing or a good dancer I have to work with what I've got.

I suspect your response might be tongue in cheek. If so please ignore the following. If your post was serious please forgive me for being so presumptuous.

"The true critical thinker accepts what few people ever accept -- that one cannot routinely trust perceptions and memories."--Alcock, "The Belief Engine"

"...human beings, in trying to make sense of their world, must make mistakes. On the one hand, they miss things that are there and, on the other, invent things that are not." --Susan Blackmore "Psychic Experiences, Psychic Illusions"

In other words, to find the truth it helps to recognize that we could be wrong. We must question our held beliefs. Wanting to be right and believing that you have extracted yourself from any and all bias is not very conducive to critical thinking. However I think you know that.

Many events have already taken place, but History awaits the release of documentation, memoirs, diaries and so on. For instance, the instigation of the Iraq War has already happened, just as the instigation of the Great War had already happened when the Somme Offensive was launched. History is not kind to the people that started the Great War not because of what followed but because of their stupidity and ineptitude. The same, I predict, will be said by History of the Iraq War (it'll probably have another name by then). And almost everything else about the Bush Minor Presidency. It's amateurish.

I'm having difficulty reconciling your first two statements from this quote. Also, I don't see the analogy of the Great War.

The Iraq war has the potential to bring democracy to the Mid-East. If that goal is achieved I don't at all see how history will be unkind? The Allies made many mistakes, blunders and even attrocities in WWII. FDR stripped the rights of an entire group of American citizens. The allies carpet bombed city centers destroying them and killing many innocent people. Truman dropped an atomic bomb on two Japanese cities destroying them and causing suffering on a scale that can't easily be comprehended.

The Iraqis were under the thumb of Saddam. If the situation changes and the killing stops and Iraq improves then I would very much doubt that the mistakes of Iraq will overshadow that success anymore than the success of WWII was overshadowed by the negative events of WWII including the stupidity and ineptitude that allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Hell, we had radar and ignored the warnings.

Yes, the "ifs" are mounting, I'll grant you that.

 

[peptoabysmal]

FWIW, there's a rebuttal in the Army Times:

While the general areas for discussion were known in advance, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo said the specific questions were not.

She said the timing of the TV interview made it obvious to the soldiers that their commander in chief wanted an assessment of conditions for the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution.

“[My boss] came to me and asked me if I would be interested in providing an assessment to the president of the United States. And I’m like, well, ‘yes, of course I would.’ I mean, like I’d say no?” said Lombardo, the division public affairs operations chief.

The night before the TV event, she recalled, the group sat down and brainstormed about who should address what areas. Some made notes for themselves in case they had time to ask the president other questions.

“Nobody told us that. We did that pretty much on our own,” she said of the session.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1174866.php

Feel free to throw a few conspiracy theories at it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

FWIW, there's a rebuttal in the Army Times:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1174866.php

Feel free to throw a few conspiracy theories at it.

And we all trust the Army after Pat Tillman, eh?

 

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - Do you think it an ethical practice to allow interview participants to know the subject on which they are expected to comment beforehand?
2 - Do you think it is a common industry practice?
3 - What exactly about that interview violates your expectation of spontaneity?
4 - Do you really expect any president to conduct an ambush-style interview on US troops? Really,
5 - Do you think that the soldiers participating in the interview wanted to know what would be asked of them and the technical flow of the events?
6 - What's the difference between this type of "scripting" and others I have cited in this thread?
7 - Does the Million Dollar Challenge, apparently a fully scripted event by the standards put forth in this thread, qualify as an honest exercise or is it a fraud and publicity stunt?

1 - Sure, but irrelevant.
2 - Don't know. As silly as the media has gotten lately, I suspect not.
3 - Promoting a rehearsed and scripted interview as spontaneous. Duh.
4 - No, but really irrelevant.
5 - Yes, but really really Irrelevant.
6 - Irrelevant, and I don't care.
7 - Why? Did somebody make a big hoopla about the challenge being some kind of spontaneous event? Oh, also irrelevant.

The target is over here, but you keep shooting over there.
Call it what it is, and there would not be a problem. Lie about it, and people get irritable.

 

[SezMe]

From Peppy's post yesterday:

She said the timing of the TV interview made it obvious to the soldiers that their commander in chief wanted an assessment of conditions for the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution.

“[My boss] came to me and asked me if I would be interested in providing an assessment to the president of the United States. And I’m like, well, ‘yes, of course I would.’ I mean, like I’d say no?” said Lombardo, the division public affairs operations chief.

My emphasis.

Riiiight. Going straight to the public affairs person is sure to give Shrub a good assessment of what is happening.

Incompetence piled upon incompetence.

 

[davefoc]

Cylinder, I'll take a shot at your questions:

Do the soldiers interviewed have a right to know what questions will be asked of them before the interview was conducted?

Yes

Do the soldiers interviewed have a right to work out the technical issues present in this implementation before the interview was conducted?

Yes

But to some degree, I think you miss the point with those questions. A stunt like this is not a free exchange of ideas. It is the conversation equivalent of a professional wrestling show. The players are pre-selected to be people who are going to speak well of the war effort. The questions are carefully selected to be ones that won't initiate controversy. This kind of thing is a show and I, personally, am willing to cut the administration some slack about it. Part of the job of an administration is PR and they set up a PR stunt that didn't work that well. No big deal, some PR works and some don't.

But is there an ethical line for PR stunts and did the administration cross it here? I think so. Representing this as a conversation between soldiers and the president when the job of one of the soldiers interviewed is a propagandist, and a propagandist with ties to the Republican party no less is a lie and IMHO unethical. But even if you don't agree that it was unethical it was at least a sign of incompetence when the truth about the stunt became public.

Personally, I think there is now sufficient evidence out there that this administration routinely crosses the line when it comes to the ethics of public relations. I would put this up with there with the use of public funds to buy off a pundit to support their views in print, or the admission of a non-journalist into a press conference to ask soft ball questions.

I would say that it is somewhat less of an ethical violation than revealing the name of a spy to attempt to discredit a critic though. It probably wasn't as bad as lying about the costs of their drug company enriching drug plan either. So in the pantheon of ethical breaches that this administration has routinely engaged in, this is one of the less important ones, IMHO.

 

[CapelDodger]

In other words, to find the truth it helps to recognize that we could be wrong. We must question our held beliefs. Wanting to be right and believing that you have extracted yourself from any and all bias is not very conducive to critical thinking. However I think you know that.

I do, and I don't claim to have eliminated all bias, constant vigilance is required. I'm confident that I've eliminated most bias and assumptions. If I foresee something that I favour, it warrants more careful examination. I like to think that History will mock Bush Minor and his Bozos, but that's not why I think it will. davefoc's given us a litany of reasons why, and it's by no means exhaustive.

I'm having difficulty reconciling your first two statements from this quote.

Small-H history happened a moment ago, but big-H History - the art, craft, discipline, body-of-work, whatever it is - has to locate and collate information about what just happened. That takes time, for documents to be released, memoirs, diaries and letters to be published, all that sort of thing. Immediate history is the concern of Journalism, a very different animal from History.

Also, I don't see the analogy of the Great War.

The diplomatic and political blundering that led to the Great War would have been just as blunderous even if it had been over by Xmas. Whatever results from the Iraq War, the diplomatic and political activity that led to it has to be judged on its own merits. If they were blunders, History will find it out.

The Iraq war has the potential to bring democracy to the Mid-East. If that goal is achieved I don't at all see how history will be unkind?

If it's an accidental outcome, kindness is not warranted. Was the war launched to bring democracy to the Middle East? Not according to public pronouncements - the case made to Congress, for instance. Was it the real, concealed reason? History will find out. If it was, and democracy does spread, genteel applause will be called for. A follow-up question would then be : why was an attempt made to spread democracy in the Middle East? If it was for purely altruistic reasons, fine. (I'm not putting my money on that, frankly.) If it was to further US interests, and a democratic Middle East doesn't do that, we'd be back to blunders.

The Iraqis were under the thumb of Saddam. If the situation changes and the killing stops and Iraq improves then I would very much doubt that the mistakes of Iraq will overshadow that success anymore than the success of WWII was overshadowed by the negative events of WWII including the stupidity and ineptitude that allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Hell, we had radar and ignored the warnings.

Yes, the "ifs" are mounting, I'll grant you that.

History, of course, will have scaled the if-mountain. All ifs become whens or die, but new ifs constantly emerge. That's one reason why I intend to live for ever.

 

[CapelDodger]

Personally, I think there is now sufficient evidence out there that this administration routinely crosses the line when it comes to the ethics of public relations. I would put this up with there with the use of public funds to buy off a pundit to support their views in print, or the admission of a non-journalist into a press conference to ask soft ball questions.

I agree, and most certainly do not buy the "everybody does it" line. There's a difference of degree in the way this administration behaves, a level of cynicism that hasn't been reached before. With a pile of hubris attached.

 

[RandFan]

Small-H history happened a moment ago, but big-H History - the art, craft, discipline, body-of-work, whatever it is - has to locate and collate information about what just happened. That takes time, for documents to be released, memoirs, diaries and letters to be published, all that sort of thing. Immediate history is the concern of Journalism, a very different animal from History.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Your sentence structure seemed logically invalid.

The diplomatic and political blundering that led to the Great War would have been just as blunderous even if it had been over by Xmas. Whatever results from the Iraq War, the diplomatic and political activity that led to it has to be judged on its own merits. If they were blunders, History will find it out.

Sure, but how will history focus on the event in general? Is FDR seen as a tyrant and criminal? Is Truman seen as a war criminal? Is the US seen as incompetent given the blunders made?

If it's an accidental outcome, kindness is not warranted. Was the war launched to bring democracy to the Middle East? Not according to public pronouncements - the case made to Congress, for instance.

I don't think it was an accidental outcome. Just because Bush focused on the issues that he believed would be most successful does not mean that he did not give the other issues greater weight. Yes, I understand that it is frustrating for leaders to say one thing and do another but sadly that is the way things too often are. Again I can't excuse but I can put in context as historians often do. We will see.

If it was to further US interests, and a democratic Middle East doesn't do that, we'd be back to blunders.

It is tempting to see motivations in their starkest of forms. The truth, I think, is that motivations are often far more complex then we want to think they are. In the past I have posited that oil, economics, a change in the Middle East dynamic as well as other issues played a part. In any event I don't see how we get back to blunders.

History, of course, will have scaled the if-mountain. All ifs become whens or die, but new ifs constantly emerge. That's one reason why I intend to live for ever.

Cool, you'll have to share your secret with me. Now, if I had to place a bet on the outcome based on the view of things as they are now I would say that the odds are against Bush for many of the reasons that Dave, others and I have enumerated.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is this really a story? These are people talking to the president in front of cameras, they are going to be nervous. So the folks in charge of things let them know what's going to happen and what's expected of them.

Yes, what's expected of them, right down to the very words they are supposed to say.

 

[RandFan]

I agree, and most certainly do not buy the "everybody does it" line. There's a difference of degree in the way this administration behaves, a level of cynicism that hasn't been reached before. With a pile of hubris attached.

I'm willing to concede that it does seem that this administration has crossed a line. It's been awhile since it was addressed but if my memory serves correctly it also seemed at the time that Bush crossed a line when it came to access of protesters when he was Governor and during the re-elections. There are a number of troubling questions concerning the Bush administration.

Of course I say it "seems". To be fair I don't think a rigorous analysis has been made. Is "seems" really a fair standard beyond what something "seems"?

 

[Cylinder]

Edit: Fixed quote issue pointed out to me by davefoc below. Sorry for the confusion.

But is there an ethical line for PR stunts and did the administration cross it here? I think so. Representing this as a conversation between soldiers and the president when the job of one of the soldiers interviewed is a propagandist, and a propagandist with ties to the Republican party no less is a lie and IMHO unethical.

So are you arguing that security has improved in Iraq to the extent that a soldier stationed in Tikrit does not have the amount of front-line experience needed to comment on operations in the real war?

Are you suggesting that a person does not have an ethical right to comment on a situation to which they are a principal by virtue of party membership?

But even if you don't agree that it was unethical it was at least a sign of incompetence when the truth about the stunt became public.

Since I understand the fact that the president isn't primarily a media producer, I don't think that argument has any merit whatsoever.

Many of the comments in this thread anger me greatly, because the premise is that a reporter holed up in some hotel in Baghdad trumps some of the soldiers serving on the ground. That's not an acceptable situation.

 

[Cylinder]

Yes, what's expected of them, right down to the very words they are supposed to say.

Source?

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1210691

You must not be paying attention to the thread.

 

[Cylinder]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1210691

You must not be paying attention to the thread.

I'm paying pretty close attention. Thanks for your concern, though. You made a very specific assertion that the conversation was scripted:

right down to the very words they are supposed to say

Where do I find that evidence?

 

[davefoc]

cylinder, there are some errors in your penultimate post in this thread. You have marked as a quote something I haven't said and you have failed to mark as a quote something I did say.

I would like to respond, but I didn't want to until you had fixed your post so I could understand it better.

Thanks
Dave

 

[WildCat]

And we all trust the Army after Pat Tillman, eh?

The Army Times is not owned by the army or the US government. It's a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc., which owns hundreds of newspapers in the US and abroad.

 

[Cylinder]

cylinder, there are some errors in your penultimate post in this thread. You have marked as a quote something I haven't said and you have failed to mark as a quote something I did say.

Sorry. I introduced that error when splitting the quote. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[SezMe]

The Army Times is not owned by the army or the US government. It's a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc., which owns hundreds of newspapers in the US and abroad.

You're right, WildCat, that the Army is (was?) not at fault for the reporting of the story, but they are responsible for the mis(dis?)information that was supplied. Just as with Lynch, the original reports made him out a hero. The parents did not find out for 9(?) months after his death - and only after applying lots of pressure - that he died from friendly fire. That does involve the Army and nobody else.

 

[WildCat]

You're right, WildCat, that the Army is (was?) not at fault for the reporting of the story, but they are responsible for the mis(dis?)information that was supplied. Just as with Lynch, the original reports made him out a hero. The parents did not find out for 9(?) months after his death - and only after applying lots of pressure - that he died from friendly fire. That does involve the Army and nobody else.

What the hell does this have to do w/ Tillman?

The story quoted the officers involved. And there's plenty of soldiers, marines, and officers who have been critical of Bush and haven't disappeared or been demoted or court-martialed. Weren't there some soldiers being critical in that Michael Moore movie?