Is this a pre-staged interview?

[chomerics]

Well, here is the interview I was talking about in this thread last night. Sorry about the quality, it was from a camcorder recordered bootleg style off my TV.

When I saw it, my jaw almost hit the floor, I thought it was a setup instantly. Personally, I think these people were hand picked to make Bush look good and to shift the blame on everyone else. It is a classic PR game, and you see it all the time on Fox News with Major Garrett. Here is an example. . .

HUME: All right. FEMA does presumably, at some point, have some jurisdiction over some military forces. Of course, the first-responders there are the National Guard. Why didn't FEMA send the National Guard in? You heard that cry from many people.

GARRETT: FEMA does not have jurisdictional control over any state's National Guard. Only the governor does. The governor, in this case, Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, did use the Louisiana National Guard for some purposes, did not deploy them in massive numbers initially. And they were not used to move any of these relief organizations in. And they could have been, for the very same reason I talked about earlier. The state decided they didn't want the relief organizations where the people needed it most, because they wanted those people to get out.

HUME: But even today, we know that Governor Blanco has now decided that a mandatory evacuation may not be necessarily after all. But we can go into that later.

GARRETT: So she says.

HUME: What about the use of, by her, of the National Guard to impose law and order during the early looting and all of that?

GARRETT: She had a choice, as I am told. She could have taken up the offer from FEMA to federalize all of the activities in Louisiana, meaning that FEMA would be in control of everything, not only law enforcement, but everything else. She declined to give them that authority. So, essentially, FEMA was trapped between two bureaucracies. One, the Department of Homeland Security, where many of its decisions have to be at least reviewed and, in some cases, approved, and a recalcitrant state bureaucracy, who wasn't going to give them the authority they needed to make things happen, among them the National Guard.

HUME: What about this evacuation problem? That clearly was something that New Orleans knew it faced to some extent.

GARRETT: And the city [sic] of Louisiana. They have a whole plan that contemplates dealing with an evacuation in the effect of a hurricane three, four or five. Their own plan says, "One hundred thousand residents minimum from the New Orleans area will have to be evacuated." This plan makes it clear...

HUME: You mean, that can't get out on their own?

GARRETT: That these people will not have their own vehicles. Not only that, it stipulates that these people are disproportionately poor, sick, and in need of special transportation assistance. And, Brit, I think in these circumstances, bureaucratic language is important. Let's go to this. This is what the state says. "The Department of Health and Hospitals has the primary responsibility for providing medical coordination for all of the special-needs populations, i.e. hospital and nursing home patients, persons on home health care, elderly persons and other persons with physical or mental disabilities." Brit, I don't think you come up with a better description of the people we saw day in and day out at the Superdome and the convention center than this very population that the state's own plan said needed to be transported to a safe place and provided services.

HUME: No plan for -- and, apparently, no facility for doing that.

GARRETT: No facility for doing that. Not only that, those who reviewed the plans that the state put together before were critical of it. In 2002, the "New Orleans Times-Picayune" had a whole story about this, saying, "No one believes the evacuation plans are possible, feasible, or will be carried out." They proved to be accurate.

HUME: It sounds as if the state will have much to answer for in the investigation coming before Congress, as well as the federal government.

GARRETT: It appears to be that.

HUME: All right. Major, thank you.

THe game is to throw up a softball, and allow the "person who knows the informaton" in this case, Majar Garrett, to sprout of the talking points of the party. It exactly what is in the video. Softball question, hit it out of the park.

Hey, at least I can give credit where credit is due, and I have to say I admire Rove. He is a brilliant man who always is thinking two steps ahead, but his game is getting old and people are starting to figure it out. Anyways, let me know if you think this is a setup. I've posted the poll for everyone to vote on.

:peaceout:

[nelms]

I don't see it. Let me go take a couple of bong hits and watch it again. I'll get back to you afterwards.

[BlueTalon]

There's not an "all of the above" option.

[bofluid]

I don't see it. Let me go take a couple of bong hits and watch it again. I'll get back to you afterwards.

cataracts?

[Larry]

Did the audience know what the questions were going to be? I don't see any evidence of it. And a few times, the audience had to stpo and think, which implies that they weren't expecting that exact question, at least.

Did I see any evidence of the reporter "leading the witness"? No.

Was the audience picked to give those responses? No way to tell from the film, either way.

Do I think ABC is likely to have hand-picked "witnesses" for the purpose of proppong up Bush? Well, I suppose it's possible that, say, the FBI has evidence of tax evasion, or some such. But it's so out of character for them that I can't imagine them doing so for any reason less than the CEOs kid being kidnapped, or something.

[chomerics]

Did the audience know what the questions were going to be? I don't see any evidence of it. And a few times, the audience had to stpo and think, which implies that they weren't expecting that exact question, at least.

Did I see any evidence of the reporter "leading the witness"? No.

Was the audience picked to give those responses? No way to tell from the film, either way.

Do I think ABC is likely to have hand-picked "witnesses" for the purpose of proppong up Bush? Well, I suppose it's possible that, say, the FBI has evidence of tax evasion, or some such. But it's so out of character for them that I can't imagine them doing so for any reason less than the CEOs kid being kidnapped, or something.

I guess we just disagree. Again, the whole network doesn't have to be behind it, just the reporter. Where did they get the people from? Do you think they would put people on the camera without telling them what the interview was going to be like? i mean this was on live TV, and they just had to deal with the Kayne West fiasco, do you think they would put people on the air without knowing thier opinion before hand?

It has all the earmarks of a PR ploy, a few "randomly" selected people. Questions like "Did ush say anything you didn't believe? Anything you thought that's just rhetoric, but the proof is in the pudding"

Questions like that are meant to illicit a specific response. Anyway, the video is up there, make a judgement for yourself, hell, i would have done the same thing in his position. Stop the bleeding, and right the ship. It's basic politics, but again it goes under the radar screen of everyone else.

[twa]

Most people I talk to believe the reporter was suprised by the results,and judging from the transcript I can see why.

Here is a link,Right wing site warning

http://newsbusters.org/node/1201

Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: “I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?”

Connie London: “Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-”

Reynolds: “Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans?”

London: “Yes, I did. I did.”

Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”

London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”

Reynolds: “And they weren't?”

London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”

Reynolds: “Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from?”

Mary: “Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.”

Reynolds: “You believe you'll be able to return to your home?”

Mary: “Yes, I do.”

Reynolds: “Why?”

Mary: “Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.”

Reynolds: “Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right?”

Brenda Marshall: “Yes.”

Reynolds: “Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?”

Marshall: “Yes, I did.”

Reynolds: “What did you think of what the President told you tonight?”

Marshall: “Well, I think -- I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.”

Reynolds: “Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.”

Marshall: “Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.”

Reynolds: “Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”

Marshall: “No, I didn't.”

Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?”

Frederick Gould: “Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.”

Reynolds: “And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?”

Cecilia: “Yes, he was.”

Reynolds: “Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation?”

Cecilia: “To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it.”

Reynolds: “Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes?”

Voices: “Yes” and “I do.”

Reynolds: “I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back.”

Mary: “I want to go back.”

Reynolds: “You want to go back.”

Mary: “I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know.”

Reynolds: “Is it your home for your whole life?”

Mary: “Right. That's my home.”

Reynolds: “And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what?”

Mary: “I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone.”

Reynolds: “What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it?”

Mary: “I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late.”

Reynolds: “Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one?”

Unnamed woman: “No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming.”

London: “And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came.”

Reynolds: “Do you blame anybody for this?”

London: “Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do.”

Reynolds: “All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot.”

[chomerics]

Most people I talk to believe the reporter was suprised by the results,and judging from the transcript I can see why.

So you actually think a network station would take evacuees from the Astrodome (or Reliant Center) and NOT know what their answers are going to be? Do you actually think a major network would put people on the live airways, considering what happened with Kanye West, and NOT know their answers? Do you actually think this WASN'T staged?

This is how the RW media works, and people buy this crap all the time. It feeds into their "version" of reality. The lady who said "they opened the floodgates," and "I blame the mayor personally", it is classic propaganda techniques. Somebody posted the link yesterday on human behavior, what people listen to, and how to maximize the response.

You shoud really check out the PBS segment on Frank Lutz. It goes directly into study groups, how to formulate your language, what to put into speech, and where to place it in terms of maximizing the amount people absorb. This was a classic response, the last question asked was "the mayor is to blame" and the first question asled was "The local and state governments failed us". You should really read up on human behavior, and psychological manipulation.

[twa]

So you actually think a network station would take evacuees from the Astrodome (or Reliant Center) and NOT know what their answers are going to be? Do you actually think a major network would put people on the live airways, considering what happened with Kanye West, and NOT know their answers? Do you actually think this WASN'T staged?

This is how the RW media works, and people buy this crap all the time. It feeds into their "version" of reality. The lady who said "they opened the floodgates," and "I blame the mayor personally", it is classic propaganda techniques. Somebody posted the link yesterday on human behavior, what people listen to, and how to maximize the response.

You shoud really check out the PBS segment on Frank Lutz. It goes directly into study groups, how to formulate your language, what to put into speech, and where to place it in terms of maximizing the amount people absorb. This was a classic response, the last question asked was "the mayor is to blame" and the first question asled was "The local and state governments failed us". You should really read up on human behavior, and psychological manipulation.

I understand and recognise manipulation quite well.

Your posts are a EXCELLENT example

[chomerics]

I understand and recognise manipulation quite well.

Your posts are a EXCELLENT example

Here is the full special online. It is called "The Pursuaders" and is talks directly about how marketing firms, and people such as Luntz, decide what language to use, and how to present it for maximum effect.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/

[twa]

And here is a example of manipulation by you

"the last question asked was "the mayor is to blame" and the first question asled was "The local and state governments failed us".

btw: Did you ever finish your hurricane research

[MissU28]

Here is the full special online. It is called "The Pursuaders" and is talks directly about how marketing firms, and people such as Luntz, decide what language to use, and how to present it for maximum effect.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/

Why do you (and pretty much ALL liberals) think that everything is a conspiracy? Just take it for what it is and leave it be. Is it so hard to believe that these people might have meant what they said? Our media is about 90% left-winged, so all we hear about is the bad things about the hurricane, the war, etc. What we don't think about is that NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE EXACT SAME WAY AS THEY PORTRAY IT ON THE NEWS. I mean look at that fat idiot Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.... Pure garbage, in my opinion- and while it had soldiers discussing how they thought Bush was horrible and the war was horrible, there are plenty of soldiers out there who love what they're doing, feel what they're doing is right for our country, and stand by our President.

So maybe, just as Michael Moore did, the guy who gave the interview knew beforehand the general views of the people he asked, but I don't think it was staged. These are likely valid people's statements, and we should take them as such. Are there people who feel the complete opposite? Yes. And we hear about THEIR side every day on the liberal news. Can't the liberals spare 10% for other views?????????????

[nelms]

Why do you (and pretty much ALL liberals) think that everything is a conspiracy? Just take it for what it is and leave it be. Is it so hard to believe that these people might have meant what they said? Our media is about 90% left-winged, so all we hear about is the bad things about the hurricane, the war, etc. What we don't think about is that NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE EXACT SAME WAY AS THEY PORTRAY IT ON THE NEWS. I mean look at that fat idiot Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.... Pure garbage, in my opinion- and while it had soldiers discussing how they thought Bush was horrible and the war was horrible, there are plenty of soldiers out there who love what they're doing, feel what they're doing is right for our country, and stand by our President.

So maybe, just as Michael Moore did, the guy who gave the interview knew beforehand the general views of the people he asked, but I don't think it was staged. These are likely valid people's statements, and we should take them as such. Are there people who feel the complete opposite? Yes. And we hear about THEIR side every day on the liberal news. Can't the liberals spare 10% for other views?????????????

Rack her!

[chomerics]

Why do you (and pretty much ALL liberals) think that everything is a conspiracy? Just take it for what it is and leave it be. Is it so hard to believe that these people might have meant what they said?

Where did I say they didn't mean what they said? I didn't, you automatically jumped to the conclusion. I said they were cherry picked for their opinions. I said this is a good example of how the right wing manipulates the media to get their point across. Do you honestly think that these people were just picked at random? Do you think they just happened to find 8 people who used the RWs talking points? Do you think they weren't asked questions before hand, and the interviewer didn't know what their answers would be? Do you think they just got lucky, and out of the thousands of people who are pissed at the federal government, they just happened to find few who were all on Bush's side?

Our media is about 90% left-winged,

You are so far wrong on that. Our media in not "left wing", our media is a tool used by politicians and righ businessmen to get people to think how they want. Maybe you shoud take a step out of your reality, and look at it from a different prospective to see what I am talking about. Go to the PBS site I posted earlier, it shows how the RW and the LEFT manipulate peoples opinions via the media.

so all we hear about is the bad things about the hurricane, the war, etc. What we don't think about is that NOT EVERYONE FEELS THE EXACT SAME WAY AS THEY PORTRAY IT ON THE NEWS.

You think because something is bad, it is liberal? Seriously, this is how you posted you question.

Our media is about 90% left-winged, so all we hear about is the bad things about the hurricane, the war, etc.

The reason we hear about those things is because it IS NEWS!!!! IT IS REALITY!!!! You just fail to see the world for what it truly is because you are insulated from other sources of information. Then, in your myopic viewpoint, you somehow have come to the conclusion that all "liberals" and the "liberal media" are just showing bad things to make Bush look bad.

Man, you really need to wake up out of your clouded version of reality, because this is what is happening right now. We ARE loosing young American soldiers in Iraq every day. We ARE paying through the nose for gas. This IS news, whether you like it or not. America is focused on the macabre, and the grusome, it is part of our identity. It is why there are murders on the news every night, it is why everyone stops at a traffic accident and rubbernecks. It is part of our fabric as a nation.

I mean look at that fat idiot Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.... Pure garbage, in my opinion-

Did you see the movie? Did you actually watch it? It's funny, becuase people who trash 9-11 usually haven't watched it. I would put money down that you wouldn't watch it either. I mean why would you bother watching a movie from a "fat idiot" like Michael Moore. Am I right? You obviously have your mind made up, so why would you bother watching something like that? Why would you bother giving that "fat idiot" money? If I had your opinion, I wouldn't.

and while it had soldiers discussing how they thought Bush was horrible and the war was horrible, there are plenty of soldiers out there who love what they're doing, feel what they're doing is right for our country, and stand by our President.

Who ever said the soldiers hate Bush? Are there soldiers over there now who disagree with the operation? Hell yes there are, but they are still over there. Why? because they are doing their job. They are doing what they have been taught. They HAVE to back the president, he is the one who sends them to war, he is the one that sends them into battle. It is their duty to believe in the cause. I hold absolutely NO ill feelings towards the military OR our soldiers, I have family and friends in Iraq AND Afghanistan right now. They do not want to be there, but they are doing their duty for our country, they are true heros.

The problem is that people, like yourself, have been brainwashed to think that "liberals" hate America. Your post reeks of that point of view.

So maybe, just as Michael Moore did, the guy who gave the interview knew beforehand the general views of the people he asked, but I don't think it was staged.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You initially state the guy KNEW beforehend the general views, then you say that it was not staged. Well, you can't have one without the other. Either you know their answers beforehand or you don't.

So, follow me here, if he KNEW beforehand what their opinions were, and he KNEW beforehand what their answers were going to be, how was this not staged? These people are 1/2 mile from the dome, and sitting in ABC chairs. They were picked BECAUSE of their viewpoint, and it is completely obvious to anyone with a skeptical eye. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", it is how the media works.

These are likely valid people's statements, and we should take them as such. Are there people who feel the complete opposite? Yes. And we hear about THEIR side every day on the liberal news. Can't the liberals spare 10% for other views?????????????

But I thought you said the media is "liberal"? Well, if it is, then how do you explain this? I mean this was Bush's point of view, not the "liberal" one, and if you thing the "liberal" controls the media how did these people get on the show? Did they just manage to grab the wrong people and not ask them questions before they were interviewed? Do you think they just decided to "wing it"?

Think for yourself and don't let others think for you. Ask yourself critical questions, as I just posted. I know it is difficult to do, because you are questioning your own decision making skills, but it is something you should do none the less. Who knows, maybe you'll come to the same conclusion, but if you examine everything critically, I don't think you will.

[nelms]

Think for yourself and don't let others think for you. Ask yourself critical questions, as I just posted. I know it is difficult to do, because you are questioning your own decision making skills, but it is something you should do none the less. Who knows, maybe you'll come to the same conclusion, but if you examine everything critically, I don't think you will.

You are a condescending little pr!ck who needs a serious beat down.

[chomerics]

You are a condescending little pr!ck who needs a serious beat down.

:doh:

Really, is it because I actually make people think, instead of believing the next line of BS you throw at them, or is it because you are just unable to have a conversation which doesn't include as hominem attacks, and charactor assisination?

[nelms]

:doh:

Really, it it because I actually make people think, instead of believing the next line of BS you throw at them, or is it because you are just unable to have a conversation which doesn't include as hominem attacks, and charactor assisination?

Yeah, you make people think what a jacka$$ you are.

Also, you might want to spell check the next brilliant, thought provoking post you type up. Your spelling sucks.

[chomerics]

Yeah, you make people think what a jacka$$ you are.

Also, you might want to spell check the next brilliant, thought provoking post you type up. Your spelling sucks.

Bye Bye, nice knowin' ya :doh:

[nelms]

Bye Bye, nice knowin' ya :doh:

:cry:

[Cdowwe]

Chom have you seen that Fahrenhype 911, or that Celsius movie...both against Moore? Just curious

[chomerics]

Chom have you seen that Fahrenhype 911, or that Celsius movie...both against Moore? Just curious

I saw the Moore spoof, I'm not sure which one it was though, I d/l'd it last year off a newsgroup. (I know how to get the information without paying the people ) and it wasn't that bad..

I have my own problems with Moore, because he's way to over the top. He always throws in spin when spin isn't needed. Take the Saudi Flights for example after 9/11. In Moore's movie, he insinuates that the flights left with the Saudi dissidents without being interviewed. Well, the FBI did interview the dissidents, and they were given clearance to leave by Richard Clarke, but he leaves this bit out. He used something like the words "rigorous iinterrogation" or something like that, I can't remember, but the premise was that they got out without being interviewed.

If he would just stick to the facts.

1. There were four planes that rounded up SA dissidents.

2. The FBI went on the planes with them back to SA.

3. Bin Ladens brother was one of the dissidents.

4. This all happened on the first day the airports were open.

I wouldn't have that much of a problem with him, but because he tries to "spin" the facts even more, it pisses me off to no end. It gives the otherside places to attack.

[Thiebear]

From the look on the interviewer, it looks like he was sweatin the interview...

Chomerics: You will think it was setup.. just like when i watch CNN i feel like its setup over there, its in our nature when you disbelieve everything they say how can you not on this one?

You WANT the Government to look bad and you WANT to expose anyone that may back them to be found bought and paid for.. Just like the republicans did with Clinton...

Normal people can look at it different but you want to be a Politician and already think the way they do....

Go watch New England and let it go...

Nelms man; you might want to go take a hit for your cateracts and do not attend any soccer games....

[Larry]

:doh:

Really, is it because I actually make people think, instead of believing the next line of BS you throw at them, or is it because you are just unable to have a conversation which doesn't include as hominem attacks, and charactor assisination?

Is this a poll? I'd vote for #2.

[chomerics]

From the look on the interviewer, it looks like he was sweatin the interview...

Chomerics: You will think it was setup.. just like when i watch CNN i feel like its setup over there, its in our nature when you disbelieve everything they say how can you not on this one?

Bear, do you honestly believe these people were now asked beforehand what questions were going to be asked? Do you think they just grabbed 6 people out of the blue, one in a wheelchair, and said we're going to put you on television, and did not tell them what was going to happen?

You WANT the Government to look bad and you WANT to expose anyone that may back them to be found bought and paid for.. Just like the republicans did with Clinton...

No Bear, this isn't about the government, it is about the media, and the "liberal bias" I hear about 10 times a day. Do I want to see the neo-cons lose power? Absolutely. They are hurting our country, and I am watching it on TV. I don't deny that.

I also trying to show the games the games ALL politicians play, and how they manipulate the media to influence people. You should watch the pbs video I posted, it's on Frank Luntz and how they use focus groups to target people and get their voice out. This is done by both sides, no question about it. It isn't about "the government", it is about "the media", and any "bias" you see on both sides.

Watching a lot of news coverage and interviews, reading articles, and speaking directly with people from NO, this is nowhere near the sentiment they expressed to me, not even in the same ballpark.

Normal people can look at it different but you want to be a Politician and already think the way they do....

Spot on bear, you're absolutely correct.

Go watch New England and let it go...

two and a half hours before game time :munchout: :40oz:

You know bear, half the time I can't understand what the hell you are saying, and the other half, I am truly amazed by your wisdom.

[DeaconBlue]

Chom... I believe that you think that you and the political philosophy that you affiliate yourself with have political currency to spend where this issue is concerned. I believe you get nervous(paranoid?) whenever anything occurs the may call in to question the political currency that you beleive is there to spend where this issue is concerned.