Hillary Clinton was fed questions ahead of time on Meet the Press.
- Thread starter icu81222
- Start date
Can't stray from the script...the most compelling question they asked her was probably "how are you today?"
And for fairness, I also would believe FN does this too.
And for fairness, I also would believe FN does this too.
In my experience with PR, generally, for an interview like this, it's nearly a requirement the questions be received ahead of time in order for the guest to even agree to come on. Particularly for a high profile guest like Hillary. Why would this be different?
In this case, as the email states ("you may already know this..."), it's likely the person sending the email isn't really involved in the interview arrangement, and may just be an acquaintance who believes they're being helpful. In fact, that's exactly how it reads.
In this case, as the email states ("you may already know this..."), it's likely the person sending the email isn't really involved in the interview arrangement, and may just be an acquaintance who believes they're being helpful. In fact, that's exactly how it reads.
Unless there is more than what was written in the article, it certainly looked like the most likely scenario. In any case, outside of that email, I'm sure her PR people prepped her with the whole list of other questions prior to that.
Is Hillary honest? No, probably not. But you have to recognize nonsense for nonsense. Just like WWJD and his reprinted republicans are for inequality rant near the top of the board. You just have to see when nonsense is nonsense.
I do understand it makes good fodder on this board though, so there's that.
You understand the difference between the SHOW telling her what she was going to be asked and someone behind the scenes leaking a possible gotcha question, right?
Hell, Hillary wasn't asked a serious question for 3 months after she announced she was IN (twice) yet every R candidate had to answer numerous questions on ridiculous topics at every turn.
The media is corrupt and will do everything in their power to drag Hillary (or whoever else gets the dem nomination) across the finish line.
If you ran her campaign would you let her go on a show without knowing the answers and questions?
Yeah, I know. I was commenting on what happens to political interview shows that are supposed to be respectable refuse to ask hardline, cutting edge questions.
I don't know how the major networks do it. I never knew that kind of thing to happen during my time in newspapers.
I have heard of some reporters agreeing to pre-conditions in order to get an interview. For instance, promising Hillary there would be no questions about Monica during an interview about State Department matters.
And I assume a show like MTP would tell its subjects what areas were planned to be covered in the interview.
I have heard of some reporters agreeing to pre-conditions in order to get an interview. For instance, promising Hillary there would be no questions about Monica during an interview about State Department matters.
And I assume a show like MTP would tell its subjects what areas were planned to be covered in the interview.
I think any candidate or person would want a heads up before they go on a show. I put this on the show and not the candidate. If a show wants to be "hard hitting" then they need to make the interviews hard, but fair. This isn't a campaign "town hall" where they plant questions around the audience. In that case then it is something to pin on the candidate, at least in my opinion.
I interviewed every presidential candidate who ran in 2008 and 2012 except Romney and never once was I asked in advance by their people what the topics or questions would be. Maybe TV operates very differently, because I'm a print guy. Kinda like J. Stewart not asking one question to Tom Cruise the other night about Scientology. Obviously there was some kind of agreement that that subject wouldn't be touched.
I never experienced it, either. And when I was on the editorial board, I'm sure we were never given conditions before interviewing people.
In the Stewart situation, we aren't talking about journalism. But still, if that were the situation, I think it would make sense to all concerned if the host at some point said that the guest appeared on condition that X subject would not be raised.
icu18222, OMG, this is horrible. How could they do this? What else on earth could possibly go wrong? Could Ron Reagan been gay? jESUS!
Points from media training:
1. don't do live interviews if you don't have to
---In many cases, you can actually tell them to re-record an answer so you can say it the way you mean it if it doesn't come out right the first time. Many interviews on major networks are recorded.
2. If you have to do the live interview, make sure you review all questions thoroughly beforehand and rehearse answers. If you can, do it in front of a camera just to get used to the idea.
3. You are in control of you, don't let it be the other way around.
1. don't do live interviews if you don't have to
---In many cases, you can actually tell them to re-record an answer so you can say it the way you mean it if it doesn't come out right the first time. Many interviews on major networks are recorded.
2. If you have to do the live interview, make sure you review all questions thoroughly beforehand and rehearse answers. If you can, do it in front of a camera just to get used to the idea.
3. You are in control of you, don't let it be the other way around.
LOL! I think you are probably right. I still don't see myself voting for the Donald...but for sheer entertainment...I wouldn't mind watching him in a debate or two with Hillary.
