Mood:
a-okTopic: Politics
Please note:
The question was asked to a man who was not running in the previously held election (he is right for not answering a question not geared for him, he is right for asking the question to be re-asked and he is right for not trying to answer a question that was at best: poorly posed and poltically motivated at worst.) and so should never have even been posed a question to which he has not the credentials to correctly answer and to which, this is something the interviewer already knows.
The media cannot be seen as anything but trustworthy and in this case their slithering sound is identical in nature to the ("sssssssss") from the politicians they report on.
Watch the CTV news reporter fail to even correctly quote his own self.
(A tragic slip or a terrific lie? Incompetence or untruthfulness?)
As the interviewer, he tells the viewing audience that he had asked the Prime Ministerial candidate ::(quote):: "If you were Prime Minister now , what would you have done that Mr.Harper has not done".
https://www.youtube.com/user/AtlanticFrankMag#p/a/f/1/K3X_BUUZkZ8
Later on, watching for proof of this ourselves, we see that this is not even what he had said.
But even if was, it is so obviously an impossible question to even answer.
Since Mr.Stephane Dion was not even in the last election prior , he can't possibly say what he would have done in an upcoming election where the public has not yet even voted.
Compared to one that he was not even in the running?
The correct way to ask such a question would have been to ask: "If you were Prime Minister tommorow (now) , what would you have done do for Canada that Mr.Harper has not done (as of today)".?
I cannot stand to see someone being taken for a fool merely by pretending to be so stupid.
But anyway, as we can see as proof for ourselves, as we watch the interview unfold and ignore the wrong prejudicial inference from the beginning, what he actually says, i.e. the exact wording is :::quote::: thus:
"If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done about the economy,.... and this crisis ....that Mr . Harper has not done?"
Compared to:
"If you were Prime Minister now , what would you have done that Mr.Harper has not done".
Can you spot the difference?
Remember this, that when he posed the question in this way, he was asking it immediately prior to introducing the context of Mr.Dion referals to Prime Minister Harper as someone who isn't acting fast enough in addition to not doing enough.
The only way to show that you are effectively listening and understood the question is to re-phrase it and pose it back to the person asking for clarification.
(Nothing wrong with that. We actually appreciate that very much when someone obliges us and pardons us if we do not understand their question at the first run.)
So he does try to re-phrase the (un-intelligent sounding) question and poses it back for clarification. Good!
So (!!) , the interviewer, in a split second, then agrees with him and all but says : (yes I agree the question is : what would you have done if you were Prime Minister for the last two and half years.)
Fair enough! So, he answers: "If I would had been the Prime Minister,.. two and half years ago?"
So then, after ignoring that very straight forward clarification request, the interviewer switches it and reverses it to the albeit even more forthwith what would you do if you were prime minister today? (So why did he just not say or ask this the first time round?)
(Mr. Interview whats wrong with you? Read the tape and transcript if you don't trust your ears reader, he had just prior asked Dion what he would have done and then he switched and then changed the question to what would he do today.)
There is a huuuge difference in asking someone what they would have done and asking them what they plan to do today or tommorow. Or why am I even repeating myself?
But I am telling you this. It takes a pretty small mind to deliberately set out to trick or trip someone up for not having English as a first langauge. Devious as well, but small gives a person more the credentials they need to get away with something like this, as in with the case of CTV.
The real thing germane to the economic crisis to remember is that back then and at that time, many people were barely cognizant as to what had hit them (crisis? what crisis?) and didn't know if the worst had come, if the worst was over with, or if the worst was yet to come.Everyone was concerend and consumed and obsessed with the future: steady or unsteady? Sure or uncertain?
This interviewer had the chance to directly ask what the bold Liberal plan was for the immediate future , thereby educationg the vast majority of Canadians , but chose not to. Tthey lost their chance and oportunity do so and its not coming back again real soon.
They blew it! No chances the secoind time around and it will come around again. Guaranteed every four years and unless your a man who can tinker with election dates to suit your self.
I for one, who would have liked to have heard Mr Dions reply. Not be overly concerend with lies about what he either supposedly said or did not say. It insults my intelligence.
I think it's fair to say that on that day that is what CTV did, like it or not.
Insulted the intelligence of a future Prime Minister as well as the intelligence of every Canadian citizen of age to think. And that includes a great many and number of Canadians not all of them old enough to vote.
But at least they understand English.
Even after all of that, he ends up asking him, if you were Prime Minister today what would you have done by now that the present Prime Minister has not done?
Sorry CTV youre wrong. The man cannot answer the quesiton of what a Conservative would do. It wasnt right then, and its not right now.
