• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White House compounds PR gaffes

I've been thinking about this a bit since it happened. In the end, I don't see any reasonable way that a stunt like this can be done.

Clearly some preparation of the soldiers is required. A random free for all would be embarassing to the people setting the event up and potentially embarassing to the president.

But on top of that some screening of the soldiers is essential. We are fighting a war over there and some doofus bringing up embarassing issues like the prison scandals or the Haliburton scandals or even the Palestine/Israeli conflict has the potential to be used by the insurgency for propaganda purposes.

So in the end the only way this kind of thing works is as a show scripted at least in the way that a professional wrestling event is scripted. And given that it just seems like a really bad idea to stage something like this. About the best that could be hoped for by the administration is that they can get through the event without looking incompetent. Unfortunately for the administration that was a bullet they didn't quite dodge here.

Add this to the Jessica Lynch fiasco and the Pat Tillman fiasco as one more hokey PR stunt that didn't work out. I wonder how many of these hoky PR stunts have been successful for the administration to the point that the public hasn't become aware of the process.
 
Cylinder said:
Do you think it an ethical practice to allow interview participants to know the subject on which they are expected to comment beforehand? Do you think it is a common industry practice? What exactly about that interview violates your expectation of spontaneity?

Do you really expect any president to conduct an ambush-style interview on US troops? Really,

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?

What's the difference between this type of "scripting" and others I have cited in this thread?

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?
Click to expand...

Cylinder, for me, this is about expectation and what I thought "news" was. I thought I would find out what was going on with the soldiers. I really wanted to know what was actually going on with the soldiers, because it concerns me very much. I thought I would find out what was going on with the soldiers, and I thought this would be news. Instead, it was someone getting some guys together and saying, "OK, he will say this, and then you say that". Well, that's not actually news, is it? It is some people following a script, like in a movie.

If I go see a movie, that is what I expect to see. If someone sets up a test, like the Million Dollar Challenge, then I expect everything will be carefully arranged before hand.

If I am watching the news about hurricane Katrina, and they are interviewing people who lost family members, I expect to hear what those people have to say. If I find out they were taken aside and told what to say, I'm not going to be very happy about that. I want to know what THEY have to say. Does that make sense to you?

The problem with the whole shebang here is it LOOKS bad. It gives the appearance that these guys could not speak their minds. It's possible that they were able to, but I remain unconvinced.
 
Amapola said:
... I thought I would find out what was going on with the soldiers. I really wanted to know what was actually going on with the soldiers, because it concerns me very much. I thought I would find out what was going on with the soldiers, and I thought this would be news. ...
Click to expand...
Amapola, with respect, I think your expectations were naive. It is almost inconceivable to me that an event would be set up where soldiers openly discussed their views about the war in Iraq with the President for a television audience. First, the average soldier is not going to risk the consequences of expressing a significantly negative view, secondly the people setting up the event are going to do their best to eliminate malcontents from the interviewed group and thirdly and most importantly what makes you think the president would ask questions likely to receive negative responses?

I have had the opportunity to discuss the war with two soldiers that have been in Iraq. For what it is worth, the views of those two soldiers were relatively upbeat. Both soldiers believed that a significant percentage of the insurgency was being fueled by foreign fighters and foreign materials. I was skeptical of that, but I suppose there might be some truth to it in that many of the suicide bombers are supposedly of non-Iraqi nationality. My sense from both conversations was that the soldiers had bought into what was being told to them by the military propaganda machine. By propaganda I do not mean to say what was being told to them was necessarily false, but it wasn't necessarily true either and that brings up another problem with an event like this. The responses from the soldiers are going to be strongly influenced by what they are being told and will always be of limited credibility because they live in a tightly controlled environment where their sources of information will be mainly people that want them to believe certain things.
 
Last edited:
Amapola said:
If I am watching the news about hurricane Katrina, and they are interviewing people who lost family members, I expect to hear what those people have to say. If I find out they were taken aside and told what to say, I'm not going to be very happy about that.
Click to expand...
What if the people do say what they have to say, but the media is selective about who they put on TV? Would you find that surprising?
 
Cylinder:

Just so you know, I graduated from the Defense Information School in November of 1979, while it was still at Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN. (ISB-14.) I later served in the California Guard for a few months, at the 69th PAD, then went into the Regular Army and wound up at AFN Europe. (Among those I was there with were Bill Kenney, Mike Anthony, Clark Taylor, Dave Deppmeier, and a number of others.)

While at DINFOS, and while I worked in Europe, we covered this sort of thing. Guess what? Under Ronald Reagan's administration, they were OPPOSED to this sort of prescripted activity. His press people felt it was dishonest.

It's one thing to give people an idea what will be discussed. It's something else to pass around talking points and plan out how you're going to fool the masses.

Sorry, even having read the blog from one the participants, that's what it looks like was happening.
 
Wow, I just read joe1347's link:
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001948.php

Assuming this is true (and it seems to be based on some additional poking around) the Bush administration has reached a new low for dishonesty in a staged event. What a complete pile of crap. What is going on in their minds? They secretly hired a pundit to hype their views, they use ringer journalists in press conferences to ask softball questions, they attempt to create phoney hero stories by lying, it seems likely that they exposed the name of a spy to fend off criticism and then lied about it, they lied about the costs associated with their drug plan and now they stage an event for the president to pretend to talk to soldiers and they put in a flack to provide propaganda style answers.

Ignoring the ethics of all the above, doesn't this begin to reflect badly on the administration as they get caught time after time? Admittedly, honesty is not one of the strongest character traits for many politicians but at least the appearance of some integrity is pretty much a requirement. How much longer can the Bush administration go on squandering even the appearance of integrity before even the hard core believers are going to walk away?
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
How much longer can the Bush administration go on squandering even the appearance of integrity before even the hard core believers are going to walk away?
Click to expand...
What does it matter? Bush has another term to complete. If the Republican party can offer a fresh, new candidate that promises to avoid the gross excesses of the Bush administration, that candidate will most likely win again.

Unless public disgust reaches such an epic level that impeachment becomes an option (which I sincerely doubt), Bush has already won. He doesn't need to behave properly - he's in power.
 
Freakshow said:
What if the people do say what they have to say, but the media is selective about who they put on TV? Would you find that surprising?
Click to expand...

No, of course I would not find it "surprising". I think perhaps you are asking if it would upset me? (My apologies if I don't understand.) As to whether it would upset me, it would depend on motive. I would expect the press to edit interviews to fit in their physical space (newspapers) or their air time. If they were editing so as to change content, or to hide facts, I would certainly be upset about that...... and no, I don't think the press is perfect. I was trying to explain to Cylinder why someone would be upset at "news" being scripted.

Davefoc, thanks for referring to me as "naive" and not "stupid" - I appreciate your tact! :) If this whole thing had been labeled as an "infommercial" or public relations, I think the reaction to it would have been very different. But I would have to be really naive to think politicians would be completely straight and honest with the public.
 
Roadtoad said:
Just so you know, I graduated from the Defense Information School in November of 1979 ...
Click to expand...
Strap me, a professional. Duly noted.

While at DINFOS, and while I worked in Europe, we covered this sort of thing. Guess what? Under Ronald Reagan's administration, they were OPPOSED to this sort of prescripted activity. His press people felt it was dishonest.
Click to expand...
I don't find that surprising. If Ronnie was talking with folks in the field, he'd just want to chat with them, and what's more he could. Bush Minor hasn't got it like Ronnie did. (Neither did Bush "One-Term" Major, of course.)
 
Melendwyr said:
What does it matter? Bush has another term to complete. If the Republican party can offer a fresh, new candidate that promises to avoid the gross excesses of the Bush administration, that candidate will most likely win again.
Click to expand...
The next Republican candidate will run against The Government. And if those bureaucrats in Washington don't like it, tough. They won't run against the sainted President, of course.

Mark my words, and watch it happen. Whether it works is another matter. The more egregious the current Gumment (none of it sticks to the President) the easier it'll be.
 
Amapola said:
No, of course I would not find it "surprising". I think perhaps you are asking if it would upset me? (My apologies if I don't understand.) As to whether it would upset me, it would depend on motive. I would expect the press to edit interviews to fit in their physical space (newspapers) or their air time. If they were editing so as to change content, or to hide facts, I would certainly be upset about that...... and no, I don't think the press is perfect. I was trying to explain to Cylinder why someone would be upset at "news" being scripted.

Davefoc, thanks for referring to me as "naive" and not "stupid" - I appreciate your tact! :) If this whole thing had been labeled as an "infommercial" or public relations, I think the reaction to it would have been very different. But I would have to be really naive to think politicians would be completely straight and honest with the public.
Click to expand...
Actually, the only point I was making is that there are many ways to shape a message, without telling individuals what to say. It doesn't have to mean that anything is scripted. We mush be vigilant against all forms of information manipulation, not just the blatant and overt methods. Even the small subtle methods, such as a tiny bit of selective editing, can have a powerful effect.
 
davefoc said:
Wow, I just read joe1347's link:
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001948.php

Assuming this is true (and it seems to be based on some additional poking around) the Bush administration has reached a new low for dishonesty in a staged event. What a complete pile of crap. What is going on in their minds? They secretly hired a pundit to hype their views, they use ringer journalists in press conferences to ask softball questions, they attempt to create phoney hero stories by lying, it seems likely that they exposed the name of a spy to fend off criticism and then lied about it, they lied about the costs associated with their drug plan and now they stage an event for the president to pretend to talk to soldiers and they put in a flack to provide propaganda style answers.
Click to expand...
You're becoming quite exercised about this, aren't you? You're normally so calm, measured, reasonable, but it's getting to you, isn't it? This administration is so crap, and Bush Minor is crappier. His performance here - Sergeant-Major? Isn't he aware that rank matters to people in the forces? - would beggar belief it it hadn't already been beggared by the "Debates".

History will not be kind to this episode in the US saga.
 
CapelDodger said:
History will not be kind to this episode in the US saga.
Click to expand...

You don't live here. I do. How can you know what will and won't be thought of the US in the future? How do you know what's really happening here?

Well, let me tell you...as someone who DOES live here...

I think you're right.

Had you going there for a minute, didn't I? ;)
 
CapelDodger said:
You're becoming quite exercised about this, aren't you? You're normally so calm, measured, reasonable, but it's getting to you, isn't it? This administration is so crap, and Bush Minor is crappier. His performance here - Sergeant-Major? Isn't he aware that rank matters to people in the forces? - would beggar belief it it hadn't already been beggared by the "Debates".
Click to expand...
I've been critical of this administration and I won't defend the current antics. I won't make a Tu Quoque argument either. That this kind of BS is typical doesn't excuse Bush. I'm quite sure the next administration will pull the same kind of BS simply because it is what works. But when it is exposed it deserves condemnation.

History will not be kind to this episode in the US saga.
Click to expand...
I think any predictions of the future is simply a reflection of what one hopes for. I can see an argument why history might not be kind but the fact is, the present is not yet history. Many events have not taken place and must be before any book can be written.

I think the odds are against Iraq at the moment but the fat lady has not yet sung. If it should succeed, even if it takes years, this will be the starting point and like it or not Bush will go down in history as having been a major figure in an important event in world history. If the economy should turn around (unlikely) then economically he could come out ok.

If Iraq fails and the economy doesn't respond shortly then it is unlikely Bush will fair well. While he was the president following 9/11 and did a pretty damn good job of dealing with that issue, if his gamble fumbles then one could not justify the fact that there was no WMD, many Americans died, spending broke records and the economy never really got going.

We like to see gaffes like the one that is the subject of this thread as significant but such gaffes didn't torpedo many previous presidents. I'll bet most here can't even name the major scandals of some of our most famous presidents.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I think any predictions of the future is simply a reflection of what one hopes for.
Click to expand...
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 can see an argument why history might not be kind but the fact is, the present is not yet history. Many events have not taken place and must be before any book can be written.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mission Accomplished

Support for the Iraq war in America is about a foot wide and an inch deep. If we had a responsible, professional media in this country it would be a millimeter wide and a millimeter deep. And that millimeter would be confined to the White House.
 
Let me try this another way. What I'm asking is for someone to describe to me an objective standard that needs to be met to qualify for an honest media exercise and show me how this particular situation violated that standard. I would also like someone to answer for me two very simple questions:

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

Do the soldiers interviewed have a right to work out the technical issues present in this implementation before the interview was conducted?
 
Last edited:
Roadtoad said:
It's one thing to give people an idea what will be discussed. It's something else to pass around talking points and plan out how you're going to fool the masses.

Sorry, even having read the blog from one the participants, that's what it looks like was happening.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to that blog entry and point out what part makes you believe that? I haven't seen anything that purports to be a confession of staged answers to this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom