I pit press conferences.

[elbows]

I have just watched a state department official give a press conference in regards to the breaching of passport files for Senators Obama, Clinton and Caine.

Every single thing about the process pisses me off. And I’m not sure who I’m angrier with the weasel in front of the microphone or the stupid media asking only the stupidest questions.

I rarely watch press conferences anymore as it just rubs me the wrong way.

It’s an insult to my intelligence to think that I can’t see you for the weaseling bureaucrat that you are, those claims of transparency and openness should get you smited by the God’s.

He must have said, “We take this very seriously.”, about a dozen times. Like somehow saying it, again and again, makes it true. And did anyone in the press corp ask, "Well, if that’s true, why was your response to this, for the first 24hrs, flat out denial that it was anything other than ‘random curiosity’?

Then he went on to explain, in all earnestness, that the under secretary was meeting with low level managers so that in future they would be certain to send that info up the management ladder. Did the press ask why they were not being held accountable for their seeming ignorance on this front? You know they didn’t.

Did anyone ask why the contractors who accessed these files were held to account and fired, but the managers, who clearly ignored state department regulations were not? Of course not.

Did anyone ask why those fired contractors were fired before they could be questioned about their motivations or political agendas? Of course not.

The weasel in front of the microphone is only half the problem in my opinion.

The chicken shits avoiding the obvious questions, are the other half.

Americans need to demand better!

[friedo]

Cite that it was something more than “random curiosity?” Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that it was malicious or the act of nefarious spies or something.

[Boyo_Jim]

@friedo

Cite that it was something more than “random curiosity?” Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that it was malicious or the act of nefarious spies or something.

Are you joking? Doesn’t the timing itself suggest this, that operatives for at least one of the candidates with day jobs in the State Department were looking for dirt?

[Steve_MB]

Now, if we had something like the British Parliament’s “Question Time”, that would be worth watching…

[Jackmannii]

@Boyo Jim

Are you joking? Doesn’t the timing itself suggest this, that operatives for at least one of the candidates with day jobs in the State Department were looking for dirt?

@elbows

I have just watched a state department official give a press conference in regards to the breaching of passport files for Senators Obama, Clinton and Caine…-Did anyone ask why those fired contractors were fired before they could be questioned about their motivations or political agendas?

Well, if all three remaining candidates were the subject of snooping, whatever political motivation there might have been seems to have been the equal-opportunity sort.

I was going to make a snide remark about a Canadian referring to Senator “Caine”, but then I realized I can’t remember the name of your prime minister.

I know it can’t still be Trudeau, but that’s about as far as it goes.

[friedo]

@Boyo Jim

Are you joking? Doesn’t the timing itself suggest this, that operatives for at least one of the candidates with day jobs in the State Department were looking for dirt?

Considering the accused were low-level contractor bureaucrats, I find it unlikely that they were “operatives” for anyone. And just what kind of “dirt” do you expect one would find in a passport file? As far as I know, the only things that would be there are passport applications, renewals, names and addresses, and proof of citizenship. It’s not like you have to disclose the names of all the prostitutes you’ve recently had sex with in order to get travel docs.

This article also says one of the people who viewed Sen. Obama’s file also viewed Sen. McCain’s. That would seem unlikely if we are to believe that he is a lurking Republican sleeper agent bent on world destruction. (Unless he did it just to throw us off his tracks! How dastardly!)

[elbows]

I was only using this one issue, this one press conference, as a illustration.

I’m not hot about this issue, it just perfectly illustrated, to me, what is so wrong with the process of press conferences as we currently see them presented.

All the questions that automatically came to mind as this weasel did his shuffle and dodge routine were never raised. Made me want to scream at my tv.

Sorry about the McCaine thing, typing slip, oops

.

[danceswithcats]

IIRC, the NPR piece this morning said that similar snoopiness took place in '92 regarding Bill Clinton, and those snoopers got the boot, too.

[DMark]

I learned long ago that the term “Press Conference” is a fancy name for useless, evasive spin propaganda.

Although both political parties are guilty of this, the Republicans have turned it into a fine art in the past few years.

[Boyo_Jim]

@friedo

Considering the accused were low-level contractor bureaucrats, I find it unlikely that they were “operatives” for anyone. And just what kind of “dirt” do you expect one would find in a passport file? As far as I know, the only things that would be there are passport applications, renewals, names and addresses, and proof of citizenship. It’s not like you have to disclose the names of all the prostitutes you’ve recently had sex with in order to get travel docs.

This article also says one of the people who viewed Sen. Obama’s file also viewed Sen. McCain’s. That would seem unlikely if we are to believe that he is a lurking Republican sleeper agent bent on world destruction. (Unless he did it just to throw us off his tracks! How dastardly!)

If someone was actually looking for dirt on one candidate they might well look at the files of all candidates, so that if it did come to light, the actual target wouln’t stand out.

As to what kind of “dirt”? I’m not sure. This NY Times article says Bill Clinton’s file was snooped

amid rumors that had tried to renounce his citizenship in order to dodge the draft while he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford during the Vietnam War.

Other things that might be there? Again, I don’t know but I can guess things like a record of countries he’s traveled to and when, perhaps the results of any investigations that were made into Obama’s declarations made on various and sundry State Department forms.

I think it’s interesting the the SD officials won’t say what kind of information might be found in the files. I imagine for most people it would be little more than name and address. For a high level government official it could be much more – for instance, reports filed about contacts and discussions with foreign government officials. Again, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

[Marley23]

Heh, if you think watching one on TV is bad, try being part of one. It’s pretty much the same, but you’re scribbling notes as fast as you can and there’s no way to change the channel.

All of your criticisms are on target, though. In their efforts to stay on message, spokespeople often say absolutely nothing, and say it over and over again. As a result, nobody believes what they hear. And on the press’ side, obvious questions often don’t get asked (maybe because they don’t expect a real answer). So nobody learns anything and nothing is accomplished, except the TV stations get snippets of quotes to talk about and plaster across the bottom of the screen.

[descamisado]

@DMark

I learned long ago that the term “Press Conference” is a fancy name for useless, evasive spin propaganda.

Although both political parties are guilty of this, the Republicans have turned it into a fine art in the past few years.

I would consider White House past press conferences with Tony Snow and, now, Dana Perino as performance art if I didn’t know they were perfectly serious.

[elbows]

Hey Marley23, I’d love to ask a few pointed questions from someone who’s actually been in the arena, if you don’t mind.

Like, what are they furiously scribbling? It’s all being broadcast and I’m sure they all have tape recorders, so what are they scribbling? From what I can see it’s not insightful questions.

What exactly is stopping them from asking a pointed question?
(Like, as per my example, why have no managers been fired for ignoring regulations when contractors were fired for their offenses?)

Why do they never call them on their obvious nonsense?
(“We take this very seriously”, times about 12, in the face of an initial reaction of complete dismissiveness and downplaying?)

It seems to me it take two to tango and the press/media are willing participants and need to shoulder some of the blame.

[Marley23]

@elbows

Hey Marley23, I’d love to ask a few pointed questions from someone who’s actually been in the arena, if you don’t mind.

I don’t mind, but I also don’t want to put on airs: the few press conferences I’ve had to go to were local affairs, like police reporting they’d busted a ring of credit card thieves.

Like, what are they furiously scribbling? It’s all being broadcast and I’m sure they all have tape recorders, so what are they scribbling? From what I can see it’s not insightful questions.

Print journalists have to write their own stories, so the broadcast doesn’t matter for them. And not everybody uses a tape recorder. I rarely bothered with them, since it’s kind of redundant and you usually need to take notes whether you are recording or not. And maybe I was working on the cheap, but they also didn’t record very well in a crowded room and transcribing from a tape is a pain in the ass.

What exactly is stopping them from asking a pointed question?

Nothing, and there’s really no excuse. My post above contained a semi-serious attempt to psychologize the press. There’s also a desire not to alienate your sources, but I think the primary problem is that people are focusing on soundbytes and getting the quotes everybody will use, instead of probing into what they are hearing. The White House press corps gets very hostile sometimes and they still don’t always ask good questions!

It seems to me it take two to tango and the press/media are willing participants and need to shoulder some of the blame.

I wasn’t attempting to deflect blame from the press at all.

[Boyo_Jim]

@5-4-Fighting

I would consider White House past press conferences with Tony Snow and, now, Dana Perino as performance art if I didn’t know they were perfectly serious.

Ok, you can call it performance art, though I would liken it more to street theater given their total lack of actual talent. I suppose it is a form of talent not to break out into gales of laughter over the BS that passes through their lips, but that’s their limit.

[atomicbadgerrace]

@Boyo Jim

Are you joking? Doesn’t the timing itself suggest this, that operatives for at least one of the candidates with day jobs in the State Department were looking for dirt?

Are you joking? You suspect foul play for no reason other than the subjects being high profile?

When I worked at unnamed credit card company, some employees would gossip amongst themselves about where John Q. Celebrity had spent money the night before. Ethical? Probably not. But they weren’t looking for dirt, and I’m satisfied that these guys weren’t either, pending further evidence to the contrary.

[Boyo_Jim]

@atomicbadgerrace

Are you joking? You suspect foul play for no reason other than the subjects being high profile?

When I worked at unnamed credit card company, some employees would gossip amongst themselves about where John Q. Celebrity had spent money the night before. Ethical? Probably not. But they weren’t looking for dirt, and I’m satisfied that these guys weren’t either, pending further evidence to the contrary.

This would be more believeable if there were other high-profile people being snooped on than presidential candidates. Of course, maybe there are, maybe the database is like swiss cheese, but I’m not comforted by that either.

Any why would the using the tools of the Federal government for political reasons surprise you? It’s certainly been happening in the Justice Department, the GSA, HUD – why not the State Department?

[atomicbadgerrace]

@Boyo Jim

This would be more believeable if there were other high-profile people being snooped on than presidential candidates. Of course, maybe there are, maybe the database is like swiss cheese, but I’m not comforted by that either.

It probably IS happening, more than you think. Comforting or not, if we policed everyone who had an idle curiosity in just pulling up big names in whatever database they have handy, we probably would have very few people working.

Any why would the using the tools of the Federal government for political reasons surprise you? It’s certainly been happening in the Justice Department, the GSA, HUD – why not the State Department?

I never said it would surprise me. I said I’m not content to assume that this is anything more than idle curiosity, until evidence shows otherwise.

[Boyo_Jim]

@atomicbadgerrace

It probably IS happening, more than you think. Comforting or not, if we policed everyone who had an idle curiosity in just pulling up big names in whatever database they have handy, we probably would have very few people working.

I never said it would surprise me. I said I’m not content to assume that this is anything more than idle curiosity, until evidence shows otherwise.

Well, we’re not really argueing then. My initial post wawas in response to friedo’s statement:

Because I haven’t seen anything to suggest that it was malicious or the act of nefarious spies or something.

(the bolding is mine). The fact that presidential candidates are have their files pored over by government officials during the campaign season *is in itself suggestive. * To me, at least.

[atomicbadgerrace]

@Boyo Jim

Well, we’re not really argueing then. My initial post wawas in response to friedo’s statement: (the bolding is mine). The fact that presidential candidates are have their files pored over by government officials during the campaign season *is in itself suggestive. * To me, at least.

Ah, ok. To each his own, then.