Paul Crowley (
ciphergoth) wrote2002-06-04 09:15 am
How to avoid questions
I've often thought that US politicians were far more open with the press than their UK counterparts. Here's a description of how White House press secretary Ari Fleischer has been picking up some techniques we in the UK have been familiar with for a while.
Fleischer likewise reserves the right to close off topics because of timing. This applies first to events that have already taken place. Upon taking office, Fleischer wouldn't comment on allegations (fed by White House leaks) of massive vandalism by departing Clintonites because "the president is looking forward and not backwards." He wouldn't discuss the firing of Army Corps of Engineers head Mike Parker because it was "over and dealt with."
But Fleischer also refuses to address events that have yet to take place. When campaign finance reform moved through the Senate last year, he declined to explain Bush's position: "It's too early, yet, to say." After it passed, and went to the House, Fleischer continued to demur because "[i]t hasn't even made its way through the House yet." After it passed the House, he still wouldn't express a view [...]

no subject
no subject
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/print.html
no subject
Next you'll be telling me there's no Santa.
Too few voting bits
Quite apart from balance-of-power forces that make American democracy ineffective, such as the media, the actual formal power structure doesn't have a mechanism to compell the government to answer questions. What are people going to do, vote them out four years later in favor of the other question-evading party?
Pavlos