Sparring of the president and journalist

Barack Obama’s consent to interview a well -known American TV presenter partly became a real sensation

Was the American conservative TV presenter Bill O`raili is right, persistently demanding from President Barack Obama an answer to the questions uncomfortable for the head of state? A Sunday television interview, which was aired before the start of Super Bowl, the final match for the title of the national football league champion collecting a record television audience, looked like an unprecedented sparring of the president and journalist.

The consent of the President of Barack Obama Obama to give an interview to Bill O`raili was partly a sensation: the American press has long complained that the Obama administration fenced itself with an almost impregnable wall for the press and the president openly avoids interviews with journalists specializing in politics coverage. As the President’s critics insist even from respectable information funds, the White House is more and more actively using the Internet, relies on social networks in order to go directly to the Americans, bypassing the press, and with it the need to answer unpleasant questions.

The decision of Barack Obama to meet face to face with a convinced critic of the president partly looked like a politically risky enterprise

The decision of Barack Obama to meet Bill O`Reili, convinced by the president’s critic, whose programs are watched by tens of millions of Americans, looked partly with a politically risky enterprise for the president. And Bill O`raili hastened to use the ten minutes allotted to him to talk with President Obama. He began with the question of why the president did not fire the Minister of Health Kathlein Sibelius, whose department, having spent huge amounts, could not successfully launch the electronic exchange of medical insurance. The President in response began to talk about the fact that recently the insurance website has been working successfully and several million people took advantage of its services.

“I am sure that the organizers were noble, but I am a taxpayer, and I pay Cathlin Sibelius to salaries, she was giving up, and you allowed her to get away from responsibility,” the journalist interrupted the president.

“I assure you that all the leaders are accountable from top to bottom,” the president answered. “But we are trying to keep the issue of the functioning of this system in the spotlight so that the Americans can acquire medical insurance. We are doing this.”

When asked whether he considers his serious political mistake a publicly and unfulfilled promise to give the Americans the opportunity to maintain the medical insurance suitable for them, the president replied that he was looking into the future, and not the past.

It became known that the White House immediately knew about the terrorist nature of the attack

Going to the question of a terrorist attack on the American Consulate in the Libyan city of Bengham, Bill O`raili persistently demanded from the president the answer to the question whether the Minister of Defense Leon Panett reported to him in the first hours after the attack that the consulate had undergone a terrorist attack. After all, the Obama administration for several days held on a public version, which consisted in the fact that the consulate was stormed by the demonstrators, outraged by an amateur film ridicurating the Prophet Muhammad. But it became known that the White House immediately knew about the terrorist nature of the attack.

The President tried to get away from a direct answer to the question, provoking O`raili's replica: "Your critics believe that you did not tell the world that it was a terrorist attack, because your election headquarters did not want this information?" “They believe in it because people like you convince them of this,” the president retorted, causing new protests of the interviewer and calls to answer the question.

The emotional sparring of the journalist and the president caused a lot of comments, including relating to the professionalism of the most popular television journalist in the country, who had a unique opportunity to ask the country's president any questions. As Jonathan Caphart writes in The Washignton Post , Obama Obhitril O`raili: “The president successfully escaped verbal traps placed by the representative of the“ objective and balanced “channel”.

Oraly conducted a pseudo -harmonious interview, asked questions that guaranteed empty answers

Other commentators considered that it was a failed journalistic work. "O`raili held a pseudo -harmonious interview, asked questions that guaranteed empty answers," Conor Fredershof insists from The Atlantic . “This is a shameful interview. O`raili had fifteen minutes to ask the president to be tough questions before the multimillion -dollar audience. He clearly lost this,” writes Marc Amber from The Week magazine.

But, according to the interlocutor of Radio Liberty, Arch Paddington , former deputy editor of the New York newspaper, vice president of Freedom House human rights organization, in such situations the president of the country almost always has an advantage over the journalist:

I am almost sure that this interview will not change anything in relation to President Obama Americans

“From the point of view of Barack Obama, it was a smart step. He can now say that he does not avoid his critics. He gave an interview to the most influential TV presenter of the most popular television channel, most rigidly criticizing him. He was asked questions on the most“ hot ”problem, the president probably foresaw them and took advantage of the long -tested answers. O`raili asked unexpected questions.