Following the publication of an article by Carole Coleman in the Sunday Times, there has been a recent upsurge in searches fo the video of the interview she did with George Bush last year. She has written a book about her time as Washington correspondent ala Mark Little. It is an interesting take on the interview, as there was widepsread praise and criticism of the interview last year. I think Richard even featured on Liveline, criticising her interview tactics.
Interestingly she did notice the response on the web, which can be found by simply Googling her name. I have logged about 1200 visits specifically searching for information about the interview.
Anyways here’s the navel gazing blog juicy reference bit, and her conclusion. It is a good piece until she starts citing Michael Moore.
When I returned to my little world on the street called M in Washington, I felt a tad more conspicuous than when Iâd left for Ireland. Google was returning more than 100,000 results on the subject of the 12-minute interview. The vast majority of bloggers felt it was time a reporter had challenged Bush.
At the White House, the fact that I had been asked to submit questions prior to the interview generated enquiries from the American press corps. âAny time a reporter sits down with the president they are welcome to ask him whatever questions they want to ask,â? Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, told the CBS correspondent Bill Plante.
âYes, but thatâs beside the point,â? replied Plante.
Under repeated questioning, McClellan conceded that other staff members might have asked for questions. âCertainly there will be staff-level discussion, talking about what issues reporters may want to bring up in some of these interviews. I mean that happens all the time.â?
I had not been prevented from asking any of my questions. The only topics I had been warned away from were the Bush daughters Jenna and Barbara, regular fodder for the tabloids, and Michael Moore â neither of which was on my list.
Moore did notice RTEâs interview with the president and in the weeks that followed urged American journalists to follow the example of âthat Irish womanâ?.
âIn the end, doesnât it always take the Irish to speak up?â? he said. âSheâs my hero. Where are the Carole Colemans in the US press?â?
I think that’s fair, at the time I seen far more blogs praising her than condemning her, and I read more right wing blogs than lefty ones.
I had no problem with Coleman’s line of questioning. It was not actually rude, but some of her questions were tough and they did make Bush squirm. But hey, he’s a big boy and well paid. Squirming should go with the territory.
But I have a big problem with a headline that quotes Coleman saying “I wanted to slap him”.
Violence is more and more the reaction of first resort when it comes to women (remember Jeremy Clarkson’s recent pie-in-the-face?), and a pusillanimously acceptable reaction. This is wrong. Personally, I find violence, other than in self-defense, reprehensible, whether committed by a man or a woman.
Let’s reply the quotation. “I wanted to slap her”, said Scott McClellan of Carole Coleman.
Such a remark would end his career. Why is Ms Coleman still in a job after promoting violence?
Or is this, once again, an expression of left-wing passion versus right-wing logic. That happens when what you say and think makes no sense.
I actually thought the same thing when I read the headline. I hope she didn’t mean it in a literal way but in more of an off the cuff remark that was taken by the sub-ed for the headline.
Of course she meant it in a literal way. Slapping is what women do. A man would never dare say such a thing (in public anyway), even in jest.
Of course she did not mean it literally. It’s a curently fashionable expression used in place of “telling off” by the younger generation, and always in a humorous way.