The Post's interview is at this link, with full transcript and audio, as it was actually said, like you were in the room.
I submitted this OpEd to the Post a few days ago, as follows:
-----------------
Presidential Candidate On-the-Record Editorial Interview
Two
of the premier newspapers in this country conducted an editorial
interview of Donald Trump. One was off the record, while the Washington
Post had
both the recording and the transcript of the hour long conversation
available on line. The first interview became the stuff of rumor, and
accusations that Trump only was candid when his real positions were not
available to the public, those who will decide
whether he will have the fate of their country, and the world, in his
hands.
The
Post's interview, provided a window on the man, as very quickly the
candidate was put at ease, opening by expressing his resentment for the
hostility
that this paper has had towards him over the years that he felt it was
unfair. He said that the libel laws should be" loosened up." showing
some understanding of the First Amendment jurisprudence that defines
this, but when asked for details said, "I’d have
to get my lawyers in to tell you." This was very different than at a
rally, where the candidate controls not only the content of their
speech, but the responses of the crowd, knowing when an applause line
will rally the troops -- whether or not what is said
is reasonable.
Debates,
especially for more than two people, become a type of stylized
performance, with each candidate having a carefully vetted mini-speech
for a wide
array of questions that never are exactly responsive but to the casual
listener seem to be. The moderator can try to follow up, but it is
rarely successful. So we have sequential extended soundbites that this
year were dominated by the consummate showman
who used this ability to dominate, and ultimately to vanquish his
opponents. The performance quickly overwhelms the substantive questions
such as defining the point where freedom of speech becomes harmful
defamation, a more challenging issue as technology
transforms how we connect.
Unlike the articles written
about
the Post's interview, only by listening carefully to the entire hour,
and then checking the transcript, provides a picture of a full human
being. The vast swaths of ignorance of all mortals, thart must
be be presented as firm conviction in traditional debates are on
display, and the public gets to see how the candidate deals with such
limitations. In the editorial interview among "friends" it's O.K. to
say, "I really don't know that much about this issue,
but my impression is ......" Here's where tone of voice is important,
or the editor may cordially attempt to verify a position, such as
asking, "are you open to changing your mind about global warming?"
That question wasn't asked nor was this answer given
-- but had this occurred, more possible in this unstructured setting,
how much more could we have learned about this, or any candidate.
As
it was, Trump, who never misses a chance to condemn our current
President as the weakest of men to ever hold that office, did say,
"Obama has been
stronger on the Ukraine than all the other countries put
together...." Now that could be a "gotcha "quote but the on-the-record
interview isn't designed for this, as Trump also gets to freely expand
in his own words on this country's disproportionate funding
of NATO, the domestic cost of free trade and other policies that he
explores in length that do have some thinking behind it. The
candidate's analysis may be shallow or deep, but they are not masked by
the limits and excesses of debates and speeches.
This
on the record interview model should become a norm for Presidential
elections, as it provides insight on more than policy positions, but how
they
are derived. It's a free form conversation where the answers can't
be scripted, that does take considerable effort by the voter to
evaluate, but well worth it when so much is at stake.
Signed
-----------
Usually the hundreds of OpEd submissions each day do not get a response, but this one did.
Mr. Rodbell,
Thank
you very much for sending us this piece. I showed it to the editors but
it seems a bit too self-congratulatory for us to publish as an oped.
Thanks again
for the look and good luck.
R. M
Editorial Aide
The Washington Post
-----------
This morning the N.Y. Times had a second interview (first was off the record) I wrote this comment:
The Times is providing "edited" transcripts, unlike their competitor in the nation's capital who provided the full audio and transcript of a similar interview with their editorial staff.
I spent several hours listening and tracking the printed transcript, which few seem to have done. Trump went into the exact detail of how he would "keep the oil" from Iraq and ISIS, which I haven't seen featured, since it is worth a headline that he proposes that the U.S. would become a colonial power.
It was all there, his paranoia, grandiosity and sensitivity to personal injustice -- yeah, and also some very human qualities. It was unfiltered, for the reader-listener to gauge, rather than anyone other than interested citizens being virtually in the room during the dialogue that unfolded. The New York Times could have done the same thing, but they chose not to.
-----------
Perhaps we can trust the N.Y. Times to always write a fair and accurate summary of an original document. Unless when they choose not to as described in this personal issue .
================
================
Note the difference in Trumps describing the U.S. response to Russia's incursion on Ukraine. Here' is the transcript from the Time's interview:
"And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do you see other countries saying ‘We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical."
===============
It was the U.S. that got "in the middle of things" while in the Post interview, because of the sense of being conversation rather than a speech, he actually for the first time since he's been running, described Obama in terms of being strong.
"I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved. And I think we bear the, you know, not only financially, we bear the biggest brunt of it. Obama has been stronger on the Ukraine than all the other countries put together, and those other countries right next door to the Ukraine"
Two interviews, one off the record that was a repeat of Trumps tough guy emage, the other on the record, but where he conveyed more honesty than the previous one. Worth thinking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment pending approval