<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: When politicians refuse to answer questions, report it. </title> <atom:link href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it</link> <description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Science, Religion, Media and Culture</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:39:40 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/comment-page-1/#comment-66937</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:39:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=238#comment-66937</guid> <description><![CDATA[What followed was a back and forth in which Ratigan attempted to get Williams to answer the following: Does he "accept racists and Nazis in the Tea Party?" The conversation reached its climax and conclusion when Ratigan declared "I don't want to continue with this, you're wasting valuable oxygen. Can we please cut off this man's microphone, he has no interest in answering my questions. Mark, a pleasure. Actually, not really a pleasure. It was offensive, you're offensive, your treatment of my show as a vehicle to spread your propaganda and ignore my question, offensive." <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dylan-ratigan-goes-off-on_n_483071.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dylan-ra...</a> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What followed was a back and forth in which Ratigan attempted to get Williams to answer the following: Does he "accept racists and Nazis in the Tea Party?" The conversation reached its climax and conclusion when Ratigan declared "I don't want to continue with this, you're wasting valuable oxygen. Can we please cut off this man's microphone, he has no interest in answering my questions. Mark, a pleasure. Actually, not really a pleasure. It was offensive, you're offensive, your treatment of my show as a vehicle to spread your propaganda and ignore my question, offensive."</p> <p> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dylan-ratigan-goes-off-on_n_483071.html" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dylan-ra" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/dylan-ra</a>… </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Sondra </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/comment-page-1/#comment-21612</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sondra]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:40:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=238#comment-21612</guid> <description><![CDATA[I remember when this first began - Dan Rather was interviewing then (I believe) vice-president Bush about Iran Contra - Bush did a side-step and Rather said "Mr. Vice-President, with all due respect, you haven't answered the question" or something similar. Bush again side-stepped. The next day, Rather apologized (and I knew it was all over) and then at some point there he was fired - am I remembering that part all right? But after that, news just changed and no one seems to remember that this happened or that it ever was any different - but it did used to be. It really did. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember when this first began – Dan Rather was interviewing then (I believe) vice-president Bush about Iran Contra – Bush did a side-step and Rather said "Mr. Vice-President, with all due respect, you haven't answered the question" or something similar. Bush again side-stepped. The next day, Rather apologized (and I knew it was all over) and then at some point there he was fired – am I remembering that part all right? But after that, news just changed and no one seems to remember that this happened or that it ever was any different – but it did used to be. It really did. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/comment-page-1/#comment-15357</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:50:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=238#comment-15357</guid> <description><![CDATA[David Gregory to Hillary Clinton: So you're choosing not to answer that question. let me ask you another issue -- Hillary Clinton: No, I'm -- no, wait a minute. Isn't it wonderful what happens when reporters refuse to pretend that non-answers are answers? <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/david-gregory-does-battle_n_77125.html" rel="nofollow">This example happened on the Today Show. </a> We need a lot more of this aggressive reporting, in my opinion. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Gregory to Hillary Clinton: So you're choosing not to answer that question. let me ask you another issue —</p> <p>Hillary Clinton: No, I'm — no, wait a minute.</p> <p>Isn't it wonderful what happens when reporters refuse to pretend that non-answers are answers? <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/david-gregory-does-battle_n_77125.html" rel="nofollow">This example happened on the Today Show. </a></p> <p>We need a lot more of this aggressive reporting, in my opinion. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Woodrow Meeks </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/comment-page-1/#comment-9790</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Woodrow Meeks]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:32:15 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=238#comment-9790</guid> <description><![CDATA[I once heard a politician state in an interview that if asked a question you are uncomfortable with to simply ignore it and answer the question you wished they had asked. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I once heard a politician state in an interview that if asked a question you are uncomfortable with to simply ignore it and answer the question you wished they had asked. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: grumpypilgrim </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/when-politicians-refuse-to-answer-questions-report-it/comment-page-1/#comment-477</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[grumpypilgrim]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:59:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=238#comment-477</guid> <description><![CDATA[Erika makes a very intriguing suggestion. Openly biased journalism, presumably covering a variety of biases, might actually achieve the goal of thorough journalism. Of course, some politicians would cower from unfavorable questions by only granting interviews with favorably-biased jourmalists -- as Dick Cheney does with Fox "News" -- but any politician who wanted to reach votors on the "other side" would need to buck up and take their punches. Indeed, such hot questioning might actually attract a lot of viewers, making participation not only more appealing for candidates, but also better for advertisers. In sum, I think Erika's suggestion is a good one. At the very least, I don't see how it would be any worse than the pablum we get from journalists now, and it seems like it has the potential to be much better. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erika makes a very intriguing suggestion. Openly biased journalism, presumably covering a variety of biases, might actually achieve the goal of thorough journalism. Of course, some politicians would cower from unfavorable questions by only granting interviews with favorably-biased jourmalists — as Dick Cheney does with Fox "News" — but any politician who wanted to reach votors on the "other side" would need to buck up and take their punches. Indeed, such hot questioning might actually attract a lot of viewers, making participation not only more appealing for candidates, but also better for advertisers.</p> <p>In sum, I think Erika's suggestion is a good one. At the very least, I don't see how it would be any worse than the pablum we get from journalists now, and it seems like it has the potential to be much better. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>