I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Ahmadinejad this evening. It was a very probing interview. Scott Pelley asked direct questions and demanded direct answers. He refused to allow evasiveness pass without at least commenting on it.
Pelley: "Are you saying that it is not the policy of this government to send weapons into Iraq? Sir, forgive me, you're smiling, but this is a very serious matter to America,"
Ahmadinejad: "Well, it's serious for us as well. I daresay it's serious for everyone. It seems to me it's laughable for someone to turn a blind eye to the truth and accuse others. It doesn't help. And the reason that I'm smiling, again, it's because that the picture is so clear. But American officials refuse to see it."
Asked if he could very simply and directly say that Iran is not sending weapons to Iraq, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't need to do that. We are very much opposed to war and insecurity…"
Pelley: "Is that a 'No,' sir?"
"…by Iraq. It's very clear the situation. The insecurity in Iraq is detrimental to our interests," Ahmadinejad said.
Absolutely fine and well done. It was a good interview and it illuminated Ahmadinejad's thinking.
My question is this.
Why doesn't our press pursue answers with our own politicians in a similar manner? Why does our press accept what a demonstrable liar, like Bush, has to say without follow up or some indication that they notice the fellow is "tap dancing" around an issue?
How come out press is so much easier on our politicians where it really counts than it is in situations like the interview with Ahmadinejad, where the outcome can, at this point, be considered a foregone conclusion?
I'm not saying Ahmadinejad should not be pursued with vigor. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be pressed hard for straight answers. What I am saying is that, in order for us to maintain a free press, it is incumbent on our media to pursue our politicians with equal vigor, demanding equally straight answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment