I get more disappointed when he throws soft balls.

I just finished the SIlmarillion and that question was a soft ball for a master like Colbert. Of course the elves know her as "Elbereth, kindler of the stars."

This guy has issues. He's been in the public eye how long? And isn't ready to throw out his best sincere mea culpa on demand? No, no, no. You are a performer, Mel. When someone throws you a soft ball like "Do you think the public will perceive you any differently after all that's been in the news about you?" you perform! This is sheer incompetence, and I would not want to work with him on any project based solely on his inability to downplay what is fairly normal "celebrity" bad behavior. This is arrogance, pure and simple. He's still pissed that he had to do any sort of apologizing at all, and he is too prideful to suck it up and keep his game face on.

Admittedly, it's a stupid game that celebrities have to play, all the groveling when they get caught misbehaving. But the public can and does turn against people. If he sinks a project, he may not get another one. That's how stars disappear.

Wait wait wait, it might be a crack pot theory...aren't you the news person supposed to be asking the hard questions and getting to the bottom of that and test it? Nahhh, we will just throw soft balls and let him do his fear stuff, gets good ratings! Why do I even bother with network news anymore!?

hahaha I can't understand WHY people would go on that show...hes just too good Of course now he is all soft balls...I liked the "Better know a district" things some

QM: Who are you quoting in the sift description? You should give the voices in your head some credit.

Also, this reporter is asking Gibbs why the questions that haven't been asked yet will be soft-balls, and why the town-hall, that hadn't been held yet, will be padded with Obama supporters.

Where was the outrage when bush was filling halls with registered republicans, and having those that displayed even the smallest sign of dissent forcibly removed?

I have a new-found respect for Katie Couric. She did a great job not soft-balling Palin, letting her walk into all these stupid statements. She's actually behaving like a journalist!

Kudos Katie!

If Bush could apologize, I'd be utterly stunned. Mainly because he thinks he's on the side of righteousness, and history will view him as a magnificent and beneficent leader, so he sees nothing for which an apology is necessary. That is the gall of a dictator on his throne. I really hope Obama can change things. I am not entirely sure about it, but he cannot possibly be worse than Bush.

Oh, and you mentioned he's a President and not a King? Well, if were a King, he'd be on the downswing of a guillotine blade by now.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I read a very interesting article in Harpers the other day called "Democracy and Deference", about how people relate to power in the US, it featured an anecdotal story about Vietnam veteran Jim Webb meeting Bush, Webb has a son fighting in Iraq, Bush asked him about him, Jim said he wanted to get him out of Iraq, Bush said that he didn't ask him about that but about his son.
What followed next was a big media outrage about how rude Jim Webb was to President Bush in the Whitehouse questioning his decisions about Iraq! You simply do not question the president. Unquestionable loyalty is more important then rational dissent.
It then posed the same example with Powell and his presentation to UN, where the statesman part of Powell lost out to the loyal Soldier. Powell later said that even though he had grave doubts about the evidence against Iraq, he still went ahead with the presentation because he was loyal to the President.
When did this type of thinking evolve? The President is not a King, he is an elected official accountable to the population. The White house is rented out by the American people to him.
The parallels are stark when you comparing the US and UK political process, the UK populace believes it has an inherent right to meddle in politics, whereas in the US its more about trusting someone else to do the right thing.
You ever watch Tony Blair giving a press conference? The audience is always full of well informed people who ask challenging questions, who make the PM sweat, who press if the question is dodged, the PM then apologizes (OMFG) and tries to clarify.
Compare that to the US media circus of PR, where questions are always soft balled and there is a silly air of jolly good fun with funny quips, the seriousness is lost. The questions are prescreened, weeding out challengers and encouraging stupid expressions of admiration along the lines of "All my heroes are cowboys" to which there is thunderous applause.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I read a very interesting article in Harpers the other day called "Democracy and Deference", about how people relate to power in the US, it featured an anecdotal story about Vietnam veteran Jim Webb meeting Bush, Webb has a son fighting in Iraq, Bush asked him about him, Jim said he wanted to get him out of Iraq, Bush said that he didn't ask him about that but about his son.

What followed next was a big media outrage about how rude Jim Webb was to President Bush in the Whitehouse questioning his decisions about Iraq! You simply do not question the president. Unquestionable loyalty is more important then rational dissent.

It then posed the same example with Powell and his presentation to UN, where the statesman part of Powell lost out to the loyal Soldier. Powell later said that even though he had grave doubts about the evidence against Iraq, he still went ahead with the presentation because he was loyal to the President.

When did this type of thinking evolve? The President is not a King, he is an elected official accountable to the population. The White house is rented out by the American people to him.

The parallels are stark when you comparing the US and UK political process, the UK populace believes it has an inherent right to meddle in politics, whereas in the US its more about trusting someone else to do the right thing.

You ever watch Tony Blair giving a press conference? The audience is always full of well informed people who ask challenging questions, who make the PM sweat, who press if the question is dodged, the PM then apologizes (OMFG) and tries to clarify.

Compare that to the US media circus of PR, where questions are always soft balled and there is a silly air of jolly good fun with funny quips, the seriousness is lost. The questions are prescreened, weeding out challengers and encouraging stupid expressions of admiration along the lines of "All my heroes are cowboys" to which there is thunderous applause.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I also doubt it was a hit peice. If it was, it was sufficiently weak and actually soft balls.. so to speak.. that RP could hit right out of the park. It could be that he's just playing the devil's advocate, like most interviewers do, especially on fox.

If this had been o'reilly or hannity, he would have had waaay shorter time to answer, and would have been interrupted. This interviewer may have disagreed with RP, but he gave him sufficient time to answer, and that seems fair enough.