http://www.breitbart.tv/html/7292.html
Good for him. He cut it off but was polite when the reporter pressed a personal question. Do you think he handled it correctly?
Printable View
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/7292.html
Good for him. He cut it off but was polite when the reporter pressed a personal question. Do you think he handled it correctly?
Yes. I guess he though she would just keep hounding him about it and left.
I support his actions. Why does she think she can hound him about his relations with his wife?
CR
Personally I would've given her a 3rd strike before walking out- but leaving after she asked the same unwelcome personal question twice is fair enough I guess. :shrug:
Such a great oppertunity to have an in-depth interview yet she asks about his wife. Typical.
France has a long tradition of hypocrisy about social relationships (and I say that as a good thing). Whereas everyone gossips about this kind of thing in their own circles, it is thought the height of bad manners to publish such dirt. Sadly, the modern Anglo-Saxon approach is gaining ground - and M Sarkozy's contacts in the media seem less able to resist than previously.
M Sarkozy handled the situation very well indeed. No tantrums, just a dignified statement as to where the boundaries lie. The astonished face of the interviewer revealed that she has no concept of those boundaries, nor did anyone in her organisation have the courtesy to research French sensibilities beforehand.
There's many a fine novel about just this kind of France - one might try Chaleur du Sang by Irène Némirovsky (available in English now, as Fire in the Blood).
I also think he handled that very well. :2thumbsup:
He should have inquired if she likes to take it doggiestyle first, for perfection.
handled perfectly.
he said he had no comment on the matter and she continued to press on a personal issue that is no business of anyone else....interview ends...seems reasonable.
now if only Clinton had the same reaction a couple of years ago.
He made clear with his first answer he was not willing to answer such questions, and reacted appropriately when the 'reporter' refused to respect that.
UH, he's a public leader. The press have every right to ask about his personal life. If he wanted it to remain private he shouldn't work in public office. Its ridiculous the way he responsed, and people should be incensed.
Maybe where you live. Here it is also 'not done' to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Yeah - a culture-clash thing. Here, we grill them on every aspect of their personal lives. That grilling leads to many worthy candidates (e.g. Colin Powell) choosing to not run for office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sadly true, Kukri.
To a goodly extent, I find the personal sexual practices of a politico to be irrelevant. Whether they enjoy the company of men, women, or lawn ornaments matters less to me than how they guide international relations or how they are planning to spend or mis-spend my tax dollars. The latter is more than enough for me to hammer them about.
Note: This assumes interactions between consenting adults. The participation of non-adults or those not capable of providing informed consent is an infama and should change their category from politico to jailed pariah.
Maybe he should have given the interviewer a third chance yes. But this was apparently before the divorce was announced so it was personal and painful so I can understand that.
CBR
Indeed, he's a public leader, yet the questions posed by the reporter had nothing to do with either half of that definition and I fail to see why he need answer such queries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Others people's private lifes seem to be a national obsession with you guys, at least that is what I get from the news with it's obsession with everything dodgy in america. Same with england, I heard quite a few promising footballtalents didn't want to play for english clubs because of the tabloids.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
The guy is the president of a large, powerful democracy with a radical understanding of the French role in Global politics and this is what the American people need to know about?. CBS is feeding us meaningless BS and should be ashamed.
It's not like he was banging his employee at the office and then committed a felony when asked about it... you know, like our Billy-Boy.
It definitely seems to be a distinctly British/American cultural trait. We humble plebs living in the colonies cannot help but follow in the footsteps of our old masters... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He handled it perfectly. The press has no right what-so-ever to ask about anyone's private life, and when he so clearly marked that he would not speak of it, asking him again is really rude. Like it's any of her business. I'd just tell her to piss off, but he politely shook her hand and left with dignity. Good for him.
I don't think it would be acceptable if a British Prime Minister were repeatedly asked about their divorce. But then again - may be the fear of such an interrogation is why parties nowadays make sure their leaders are - apparently - happily married.
The other aspect is that the French President is the Head of State. I think the symbolic aspect of that role requires some additional distance that the French President maintained effectively here.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, until I realized that you weren't. That is dead wrong and is full of crap, people's private lives are private, period, no matter what their job is. I could care less if the mayor of my city is really a cross dressing furry with a fetish for I Love Lucy lookalikes, that's his/her own private business, so long as they do their job well and appropriately. Spare us the nonsense about public scrutiny and being 'examples' in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Must be a culture thing. I'd care if my commander and chief was donking a 20 year old intern with a cigar and getting a bj in the oval office.
The French President? I don't really care/have a right to know. Seemed out of place to ask.
...and what are the chances the issue was already established as "off limits" before the interview? 60 Minutes has a reputation for falsifying information and trying to catch people off guard for the juicy sound byte. :no:
Well I would go with the general consensus that his relationship is nobodies business.....if he hadn't said that he couldn't do his work or reach what he is trying to achieve without her strength alongside him .
Comments like that from him linking his ability to do his job to his relationship make it a whole different ball game .
Lawn Gnomes make me horny!!!:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Unless it was a hypocritical stance. Such as a mayor who campaigned against transvestites and red heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
You do make a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
There are some instances where examination of a personal relationship may be fair game. In M Sarkozy's case, had the reporter asked questions about Cecilia's role as "ambassador/negotiator" to Libya in the Bulgarian nurses case, and why she was qualified to make that visit, there would have been legitimate public interest. One might even have stretched the point to investigating the reasons for her "snub" to President Bush on the state visit to America, which could have damaged France's national interest.
But this reporter did none of these things. She wanted gossip and dirt.
Well theres no accounting for amatuers , she could have asked.... "when your wife did the deal with Daffy was it just guns and money involved or did she offer sexual favours " ....covers the subject , adds a bit of scandal then leads to ..." so this divorce thing , is it because of allegations that your wife went down on Daffy or were you just annoyed that she gave too much guns and money for a couple of bulgarians and didn't get enough oil rights as a bonus ? " .Quote:
But this reporter did none of these things. She wanted gossip and dirt.
Ouch. I don't think she'd have gotten a handshake then. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Sarko did the essentially the right thing, though he could have been more polite and restrained about it. You don't call one of your underlings an 'imbecile' in public. It is un-gentlemanlike and unnecessary.
I don't like this man's rash approach to people as well as to all sorts of issues, and this is one instance.
*Knet-ter-gek*
hehe :2thumbsup:
While I dislike Sarko, I won't blame him for calling David Martinon an imbecile :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II