Apologies are no indications of how well the interview went – that’s a silly comment.

Right! Baier was being graceful – something southerners have a reputation for exhibiting, and something with which Democrats have little knowledge.

On March 18th, 2010 at 8:06 pm, zyzzyg said:

How they come off and whether they apologize afterwards is an indication of how well the interview went.

Bret came off awesome!

Apologies are no indications of how well the interview went – that’s a silly comment.

On March 18th, 2010 at 2:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

On March 18th, 2010 at 11:07 am, Dimsdale said: #84

Obama was off balance because he didn’t get to prescreen the questions as he does during his press conferences (when he used to have them).

Nope. The precise questions are not prescreened, however specific reporters are called upon for various reasons, typically because they will ask about a specific topic the WH wants to address. Yeah, it is very near Kabuki Theater.

Well, how does that work unless he or his staff know what the question is going to be? Or are the reporters restricted to some degree of narrowness in their questions? Either way, Obama was working from talking points rather than a command of the subjects. Unless obfuscation and filibustering are considered command of the subject.

Baier was carrying the load for the rest of the media, asking the questions that needed to be asked. The big story for the liberal media is Sandra Bullock’s hubby cheating on her!

Yes, go ahead and ask the questions, but don’t interrupt. Ask the question again. Be persistent and be respectful.

Part of persistence is getting the questions answered, which Baier was determined to do, and Obama was determined not to do. As for respect, it goes both ways, and it was equally disrespectful of Obama not to answer the questions of Baier and inform the viewers.

You may not have noticed, but I have not insulted anyone, called anyone names, launched a rant or slung an epiteth, but I have repeatedly asked, in one form or another, ‘Why did Bret apoligize if he was not wrong’?

Would it be fair to say that Bret and I have something in common? That we would like our questions answered? Heck, everyone would like their questions answered. The difference is our style.

Well, not having seen said apology, or having any inkling of Baier’s reasoning for doing so, on the basis of the interview, I would say the apology was unwarranted. Getting answers is his job, and Obama, since he works for us, is necessarily obligated to provide those answers.

Will you answer the question?

Did Bret apologize because he knew that he was wrong, disrespectful, and continually interrupted the President of the United States?

See above. I might go for mildly disrespectful, but wrong? No. Obama would have bloviated for the entire interview if Baier had not taken command. Obama could have gained respect by having actual knowledge of the proposed bill and its consequences. His sidestepping showed that this was not the case.

The liberal media, all media for that matter, does what it does. Go figure.

The leftward bias of the so called mainstream media created the need for Fox. The results (viewership) prove that. Reporters, as well as scientists, are obligated to be completely objective. That is the real failure in what is called journalism today.

It was far from a fail: it was long overdue.

Asking the questions or interrupting was long overdue?

Asking the questions. The interrupting came about out of the necessity for getting actual answers to the questions. Any good reporter does that.

And, it was a fail for Fox. It allows the WH to advance their theory that Fox is not fair and balanced, but has an agenda.

As you say, the media does what it does. As I say, their subjectivity demanded the creation of a balancing force, Fox News. Fair and balanced may be in the eye of the beholder, but simply being critical of the White House, which all reporters should instinctively do until satisfied that the information coming out of the WH is complete and accurate. The real “fail” of the media is not to be critical (and this can be both positive and negative) of any politician, source, or witness they are interviewing.

The role of the press is not to be disrespectful.

No, Ziggy, being ‘disrespectful’ is precisely the role of a free press.

Disrespect is in the eye of the beholder. Adoring followers always consider serious grilling of their leaders to be ‘disrespectful.’

You argue like you’re Chinese.

Baier was entirely correct to interrupt at several points when the President was so clearly evading the question, deliberately waffling to lose time. Baier’s “apology” for interrupting was a gracenote – he had every reason to interrupt.

If Obama ever had to face a full-on press conference instead of the usual lapdogs, he would be torn apart. Politely.

And if he had to face anything like the UK PM’s Question Time – he would be laughed out of the Chamber.

Meanwhile, my heart bleeds for all the poor sufferers of the Hawaii earthquake.

On March 18th, 2010 at 1:15 pm, GladzKravtz said: #109

but you really know why … that saying … something like ..

“Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” And respect for the office even if it is 2ndary to informing us of the President’s beliefs.

Very well. Bret needs forgiveness because he did something wrong.

The President’s beliefs can be determined without interruption. Give him enough rope, the viewing public will know when he is done.

On March 18th, 2010 at 1:06 pm, Mister P said: #108

something tells me ole zig would be quite happy living in a tyranny. He does not understand the role of the press in a free society

You ought stop listening to ‘something’. The role of the press is not to be disrespectful. It isn’t necessary when the press is tough and not humble, persistent and not duplicitous.

The press is a good thing when they do good. And, interrupting is not a good thing. That is why Bret apologized. He realized he did not do a good thing.

On March 18th, 2010 at 12:57 pm, Flyoverman said: #105

Brett Baier can do what he wants. Frankly I would not have. It is his job to end the Obama filibustering.

True. Any interveiwer can do what they want. How they come off and whether they apologize afterwards is an indication of how well the interview went.

I was responding to your assertion,

Just web search “contentious Bush interview” or “contentious Clinton interview.” Lots there.

Frost-Nixon ring a bell? Ever see a Dan rather interview of Reagan or either President Bush? In 1988 Rather got into a shouting match during an interview with then VP George HW Bush.

My statement is based on my memory. My memory. If I do not remember something. I do not remember it. Another poster mentioned the shoe throwing at Pres Bush. Yep, I remember that and it wasn’t a one on one interveiw.

Again, my contention is had Obama been properly vetted by a dispationate press and not a group of cheerleading enablers he would have never even been nominated, much less elected.

Ummmm, OK. Though I disagree. To me it was less about his being interviewed than it was about the Iraq War (and, Sen Clinton’s support of it).

Given Obama’s past, if you redacted his name and gave personal information over to the FBI, based on their findings he would be denied a security clearance.

A bit of a tangent. And I disagree with your assertion. No doubt Rep Massa, as a military officer, had a clearance eventhough he was touchy feely. Yep, even I have a security clearance eventhough in college I did some silly things. Few of us are far from perfect and we each have our flaws. Sometimes it is not what about what you did, but what you do with it afterwards.

FNC has not only scored an interview that everyone is talking about (garnering them a truckload of free publicity) but has proven why it is cable’s news leader. Even FNC’s critics in the MSM are lauding both Fox and Baier for practicing real, probing journalism in conducting the interview.

And as both a Southerner and former football player, Baier’s “no-hard-feelings” words at the end of the interview were to be expected and amounted to little more than an obligatory courtesy.

Kudos to Baier, FNC and Roger Ailes!

On March 18th, 2010 at 12:46 pm, John Deaux said: #104

Oh, so it’s only appropriate for a one on one interview. Got it.

So you would have been okay with Jake Tapper flinging a Rockport at Obama if it was a routine press conference?

Throwing a shoe and/or bellegerantly interrupting are wrong anytime.

On March 18th, 2010 at 12:38 pm, b-cat said: #102

To give you something to go on and on about?

Incorrect.

It’s a bloody, buggery cock-up of global proportions!

spaceycakes: I love it when you talk dirty!

It’s a bloody, buggery cock-up of global proportions!

it was a fail for Fox DuhOne. It allows shows the WH to be advance their theory that Fox is not fair and unbalanced, but has with an socialist agenda.

zyzzyg: FIFY

BTW, if at first you don’t succeed and the one being interviewed still doesn’t answer the question and tries to repeat the same, tired answer by running down the same old rabbit trail, you have to cut him off and redirect him — or else you are wasting everyone’s time (including the one being interviewed).

If he truly wants to communicate with the people, DuhOne needs to get out of the campaign mode and talk real-world talk, not rhetoric.