In article . com,
"rigger" wrote:

Rex B wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On NPR I yesterday (the 16th) heard an interview of Frank Pillar, who
retired from a high post at the CIA a year or two ago, and published a
piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

The interviewer hewed to the mantra about the administration ignoring
and/or misusing intelligence information, repeating her phrase many
times, but Mr Pillar always answered diplomatically with a nuance-filled
reply, but didn't confront the assumptions built into her question
either.

If this had been a court proceeding, the interviewer would have been
slapped down for biased phrasing and for attempting to lead the witness.
But Mr Pillar didn't bite, so it was more an annoyance than a problem.

I have noticed that more and more of late. For a while NPR seemed to be
trying to be objective, but they don't appear to making that effort lately.

I think it's gone beyond "objective" being the reason for some
articles.

My problem with these interviews is more basic. I'm not sure is the
core problem is bias so much as simple lack of interviewing skills.
Maybe it's both. Some of these interviewers seem incapable of letting
an interviewee answer a question.

Pattern: First, the long question, complete with two or three leading
answers proposed by the interviewer. Then a short answer. Most
interviewees don't question the the assumptions of the question,
probably from politeness, so we are really hearing what the interviewer
thinks, not what the interviewee thinks. It's very frustrating - I
wanted to know what the interviewee thinks, but he hardly gets a word in
edgewise.


Look at this earlier comment:

On the matter of WMDs, Mr Pillar did say that at the time just before
the invasion, there was a worldwide consensus of intelligence agencies
that Iraq did have WMDs; the only dispute was over the likelihood that
Saddam would use them.

Now Mr. Pillar can feel, believe, think any way he wants to of course.
But I don't believe what he said is true. I remember it was England
and the US who told lies back and forth to each other until they
thought enough people believed them and then launched the attack.

Can anyone remember/show us anything to back-up his allegations
concerning the thoughts of the other world's security agencies? He
says this, I feel, to try to blunt the public's opinion; after all,
there's strength in numbers and if EVERYONE made the same blunders then
the CIA can't be so bad after all. Nice try.

Mr Pillar was in a position to know from direct personal experience what
the CIA though, as well as what the other intelligence agencies thought
about the issue. He was in charge of all Middle East intelligence at
the CIA from 2000 to 2005, and as such would be talking to his
counterparts in those other intelligence agencies, probably daily. This
isn't something that someone in that sort of job would get wrong. Are
you saying that he is lying?


If I were a reporter getting fed this drivel I'd be asking some pointed
questions as well. Hell, reporters are just like us, right? (Well, at
least they're not lawyers).

There is a difference between a sharp question and a leading question.
Actually, I didn't hear any sharp questions. I for one would have asked
him to explain how the difference in opinion on the likelihood that
Saddam would use the WMDs proved that WMDs could not be the reason that
the US administration went to war. One can phrase such a question
neutrally, and politely, but it's still a sharp question. The answer
is likely to be very revealing.

Joe Gwinn