If there's anything you can learn from the transcripts of the regular White House press gaggles, it's that the majority of reporters there are jaw-droppingly clueless about how to ask a decent question. As Exhibit A, I draw your attention to an exchange between one reporter (I believe it's President Chimpy's archnemesis Helen Thomas) and White House spokesferret Scott McClellan:
...
Q Is the President going to ask the RNC to back off of Harry Reid at all?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Is the President going to ask the RNC to back off --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has made it very clear that he intends to work closely with members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, on our common priorities. And the President wants to work closely -- that includes working closely with Senator Reid. The President has reached out to him and will continue to do so on ways we can work together to advance common priorities.
And he attended a private dinner at the White House last night. The President was pleased that he did, and they had a good visit there. And -- they've had a number of previous conversations, too. But the President has always been someone who has worked to elevate the tone and reach out to members on both sides of the aisle. And that's exactly what he will continue to do.
Q Is he finding it constructive, though, what the RNC is doing? Is that helping him at all in his effort to reach --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the President's focus is on reaching out to all members who want to work together to advance our shared priorities. And that's what he will --
Q Does the letter --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and Senator -- well, you can talk to the Republican National Committee about what they did. I'm not familiar with all the aspects of what they're doing.
Q It's not like they do what they do in a vacuum --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can tell you -- I speak for the President -- I can tell you that the President has made it very clear time and time again that he is interested in working together to accomplish the people's business here in Washington, D.C. And that's what he will continue to do. He has talked to Senator Reid on a number of occasions since the election, reached out in private phone conversations, as well as talked to him last night in the private dinner that he invited him to attend at the White House. That's the way the President will continue to operate.
...
Q Does he or does he not support the letter from the RNC about Senator Reid?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed -- I think I've addressed the issue.
Q You just dodged the question.
Now, as much as I dearly love Helen Thomas, this exchange is depressingly lame.
First, by just reading the transcript, you have no idea what the issue is. What letter from the RNC? What she's talking about is this -- the Republican National Committee demonizing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid simply for being endorsed by gay rights groups. But you'd never know that from Thomas' vague and meaningless question, would you? More to the point, though, even if she had managed to squeeze in that explanation, there's still too much latitude in the question, and it allows McClellan to pretty much blow her off.
So, what would have been a better question? I'm glad you asked. How about:
Q Scott, did the President or any of his staff have anything to do with the RNC's recent letter, gay baiting Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?
Not to sound unhumble or anything but that's a question that's a lot tougher to tap dance around. In the first place, it at least briefly describes the issue for people who come by later to read the transcript.
More importantly, it addresses that issue in a far more unequivocal way. It's the difference between asking the following two questions:
Q Did the president do X?
Q Why did the president do X?
Note the critical difference. If you ask the first question, you're leaving the door open for someone to say, "No, he didn't." The second question doesn't allow for that; it assumes that X has already occurred and is not open for debate, and forces the respondent to deal with it. If said respondent wants to deny X, they have some work to do. And notice that that's what's happening in my rephrasing of the question -- we're already working from a position that the RNC sent out a letter gay baiting Reid, now we want to know whether the president had anything to do with it. Way less room for tap dancing there.
By the way, there's another common evasion McClellan uses a little further down. Still referring to the RNC/Harry Reid issue:
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can direct those questions -- you can direct questions about RNC letters to the RNC just like you would about the Democratic National Committee. The President is committed to reaching out and working together on shared priorities. That's what he'll continue to do.
But the question wasn't asking about the RNC's opinion on the subject; it was asking about President Chimpy's opinion, so redirecting the questioner to the RNC is meaningless. This is a tactic that was honed to pretty near perfection by McClellan's predecessor, the spectacularly sleazy Ari Fleischer, whose legendary evasions went something like this:
Q Ari, what does the president think of the Israelis' bulldozing and wanton destruction of Palestinian olive groves?
Fleischer: Well, you'll have to ask the Israelis about that.
And why would we do that, when we want to know the president's opinion? But McClellan has learned well, and it's clear that no one in the press corps has figured this out. Lame. Really, really lame.
No comments:
Post a Comment