Andrew and Obama: A cringe worthy scene of sniveling appeasement
Sasha | 25.05.2011 01:21 | Analysis
John Pilger once said, it is not the job of the journalist be unbiased; their job is to hold up a mirror to society and its representatives, and to hold our leaders accountable for the atrocities they commit.
It seems I’m not the only one thoroughly disgusted with Andrew Marr’s interview with Barack Obama (and Marr’s garish tie). Especially considering that this is was the only interview granted to the British Press in advance to, and during, the US president’s visit to the UK.
This is hardly surprising behaviour on Marr’s part; his servile, opportunistic fawning over Blair all through the New Labour years and beyond, particularly when interviewing him about his memoirs in 2010 is the stuff of journalistic legend. As is his infamous assertion that Baghdad falling without a bloodbath was a vindication of Blair and the Iraq war,
“It would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger Prime Minister as a result.”
Despite all this however, the Obama interview still left me aghast.
Even before the interview had started, the body language is striking. Hunched over in his chair, leaning towards Obama, Marr is the epitome of deferential appeasement. As the interview progresses, punctuated by Marr’s starry-eyed smiles and sycophantic simpers, it becomes increasingly obvious that Obama is not going to be quizzed on anything of importance.
It starts off with Marr asking about how Obama feels about finally capturing Bin Laden on a personal level. Not why he was assassinated, why there was no due process, what justification exists for burying the body at sea or the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty or even how he would respond to criticisms of the way the whole affair was handled, from figures such as Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Marten and Gary Leupp. No allusion to the allegations that the SEALS were under orders to ‘kill not capture’; a clear violation of international law.
Obama isn’t pressed on the issue at all, and after a couple of feeble attempts at follow up questions, the topic is quickly abandoned. The next question raises my hopes a little; Marr asks whether the US would send forces into Pakistan if they received intelligence of other al-Qaeda figures hiding out there. Obama’s response? A resounding yes. This is the perfect opportunity for Marr to force the president to play hardball, and I’m incredulous as to how he managed to let it slip.
Obama’s brazen acknowledgment of the US’ bullying tactics and the assertion that American interests trump Westphalian sovereignty, while worrying on many levels, is not a surprise to those of us who follow American politics. US foreign policy over the past 60 years has made it painfully evident. That Marr does not follow this statement up with any probing however; that he doesn’t even attempt to take Obama to task, is appalling.
To make matters worse, he does the exact opposite, raising David Cameron’s statements regarding Pakistan “looking both ways” on terrorism, in what seems to be thinly veiled support for the further demonisation of Pakistan as a consequence of the OBL affair, and an attempt to justify the US breach of Pakistan’s independence.
Marr goes on to Afghanistan, asking when US troops are going to pull out, as it is “never going to be sort of Switzerland with minarets” (cue hysterical laughter). No mention of Obama’s vow to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July this year. No hardtalk regarding the fact that Obama has actually intensified the war in Afghanistan since he’s been in office, along with drone attacks in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, killing a huge number of civilians.
Obama’s Middle East speech is touched upon briefly, but again no mention of the backlash his reference to the 1967 borders generated within the US and Israel, no hint at the U-turn he made when addressing the AIPAC conference, and not even a question regarding how Netanyahu’s assertion that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004”; fundamentally telling arguably the most powerful man in the world what to do, made him feel on a personal level.
The ‘Arab Spring’ is sweeping away the puppet dictators that pandered to Israel’s every whim, and the millions of Arabs who are now expecting to have democratic say in their governments are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine. Add to that the fact that according to the recent Zogby International poll found that when asked to name two countries that posed the greatest threat to region, 88% of Arabs named Israel, 77% pointed the finger at the US, while only 10% feared a nuclear Iran; a possibility that the US would have us believe is the main threat to world peace, let alone the middle east. Asking about whether the Obama administration was considering re-evaluating its policy regarding Israel in light of these facts must have just slipped Marr’s mind. Indeed, it was the interim government in Egypt, a long-standing US/Israeli ally that mediated the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
Pointing out that considering the $3bn of annual subsidies the US grants Israel, it is hardly a neutral broker in the Palestinian Peace Process, would have been a start; albeit leaving much to be desired. Or that despite paying lip service to the 1967 borders, Obama has continued the American tradition of vetoing UN resolutions demanding a settlement freeze.
Marr asks whether Obama has a message for the Syrian people; who will be going out to “confront batons, and they’re going to be killed, some of them by bullets”. Skirting over the fact that sources in the middle east have continually asserted that the situation in Syria is not as atrocious as is being portrayed (that is a topic for another rant) why not ask for a message for the people of Bahrain? Or the Libyans? Ah of course, that would have raised questions about Cameron’s photo opportunity with the Bahraini crown prince earlier, and we must not forget that Bahrain is a key US ally. Lets sweep the deaths of Bahraini protestors under the rug, along with the fact that Gaddafi is using British and US guns to kill his own people.
A few feeble questions about Obama’s 2012 presidential bid ensue, glossing over the fact that Obama’s approval rating have dropped by over 30% since he took office, increasing by only 11 points after the Bin Laden raid.
Marr wraps up the interview with the most politically sensitive topic on the US’ list of priorities; how the president feels about the Queen. The following question doesn’t even make sense. Judging by Obama’s face, it was clear he failed to understand the point Marr was trying to make as well. I doubt Marr fully understood either.
"David Cameron has the opportunity every week to sit down with the Queen. And I think the first president she remembers was Truman and then Eisenhower and so on. Have a completely private conversation. No notes, no microphones. Do you have anyone you can have that kind of conversation with? Would you like there to be somebody with that sense of history that you could just totally privately shoot the breeze with?"
The phrase ‘privately shoot the breeze’ should be banned from all serious conversation.
It is highly telling that Marr devotes as much time talking about Obama’s impression of the Queen as he does talking about America’s future plans regarding Afghanistan. This is not a serious journalist interviewing a dubious politician, it is a cringe worthy scene of sniveling appeasement and it is extremely disappointing that this is the best the BBC has to offer the licence-payer. Andrew Marr’s interview is a slap in the face of real journalism and honest journalists everywhere.
It seems I’m not the only one thoroughly disgusted with Andrew Marr’s interview with Barack Obama (and Marr’s garish tie). Especially considering that this is was the only interview granted to the British Press in advance to, and during, the US president’s visit to the UK.
This is hardly surprising behaviour on Marr’s part; his servile, opportunistic fawning over Blair all through the New Labour years and beyond, particularly when interviewing him about his memoirs in 2010 is the stuff of journalistic legend. As is his infamous assertion that Baghdad falling without a bloodbath was a vindication of Blair and the Iraq war,
“It would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger Prime Minister as a result.”
Despite all this however, the Obama interview still left me aghast.
Even before the interview had started, the body language is striking. Hunched over in his chair, leaning towards Obama, Marr is the epitome of deferential appeasement. As the interview progresses, punctuated by Marr’s starry-eyed smiles and sycophantic simpers, it becomes increasingly obvious that Obama is not going to be quizzed on anything of importance.
It starts off with Marr asking about how Obama feels about finally capturing Bin Laden on a personal level. Not why he was assassinated, why there was no due process, what justification exists for burying the body at sea or the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty or even how he would respond to criticisms of the way the whole affair was handled, from figures such as Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Marten and Gary Leupp. No allusion to the allegations that the SEALS were under orders to ‘kill not capture’; a clear violation of international law.
Obama isn’t pressed on the issue at all, and after a couple of feeble attempts at follow up questions, the topic is quickly abandoned. The next question raises my hopes a little; Marr asks whether the US would send forces into Pakistan if they received intelligence of other al-Qaeda figures hiding out there. Obama’s response? A resounding yes. This is the perfect opportunity for Marr to force the president to play hardball, and I’m incredulous as to how he managed to let it slip.
Obama’s brazen acknowledgment of the US’ bullying tactics and the assertion that American interests trump Westphalian sovereignty, while worrying on many levels, is not a surprise to those of us who follow American politics. US foreign policy over the past 60 years has made it painfully evident. That Marr does not follow this statement up with any probing however; that he doesn’t even attempt to take Obama to task, is appalling.
To make matters worse, he does the exact opposite, raising David Cameron’s statements regarding Pakistan “looking both ways” on terrorism, in what seems to be thinly veiled support for the further demonisation of Pakistan as a consequence of the OBL affair, and an attempt to justify the US breach of Pakistan’s independence.
Marr goes on to Afghanistan, asking when US troops are going to pull out, as it is “never going to be sort of Switzerland with minarets” (cue hysterical laughter). No mention of Obama’s vow to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July this year. No hardtalk regarding the fact that Obama has actually intensified the war in Afghanistan since he’s been in office, along with drone attacks in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, killing a huge number of civilians.
Obama’s Middle East speech is touched upon briefly, but again no mention of the backlash his reference to the 1967 borders generated within the US and Israel, no hint at the U-turn he made when addressing the AIPAC conference, and not even a question regarding how Netanyahu’s assertion that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004”; fundamentally telling arguably the most powerful man in the world what to do, made him feel on a personal level.
The ‘Arab Spring’ is sweeping away the puppet dictators that pandered to Israel’s every whim, and the millions of Arabs who are now expecting to have democratic say in their governments are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine. Add to that the fact that according to the recent Zogby International poll found that when asked to name two countries that posed the greatest threat to region, 88% of Arabs named Israel, 77% pointed the finger at the US, while only 10% feared a nuclear Iran; a possibility that the US would have us believe is the main threat to world peace, let alone the middle east. Asking about whether the Obama administration was considering re-evaluating its policy regarding Israel in light of these facts must have just slipped Marr’s mind. Indeed, it was the interim government in Egypt, a long-standing US/Israeli ally that mediated the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
Pointing out that considering the $3bn of annual subsidies the US grants Israel, it is hardly a neutral broker in the Palestinian Peace Process, would have been a start; albeit leaving much to be desired. Or that despite paying lip service to the 1967 borders, Obama has continued the American tradition of vetoing UN resolutions demanding a settlement freeze.
Marr asks whether Obama has a message for the Syrian people; who will be going out to “confront batons, and they’re going to be killed, some of them by bullets”. Skirting over the fact that sources in the middle east have continually asserted that the situation in Syria is not as atrocious as is being portrayed (that is a topic for another rant) why not ask for a message for the people of Bahrain? Or the Libyans? Ah of course, that would have raised questions about Cameron’s photo opportunity with the Bahraini crown prince earlier, and we must not forget that Bahrain is a key US ally. Lets sweep the deaths of Bahraini protestors under the rug, along with the fact that Gaddafi is using British and US guns to kill his own people.
A few feeble questions about Obama’s 2012 presidential bid ensue, glossing over the fact that Obama’s approval rating have dropped by over 30% since he took office, increasing by only 11 points after the Bin Laden raid.
Marr wraps up the interview with the most politically sensitive topic on the US’ list of priorities; how the president feels about the Queen. The following question doesn’t even make sense. Judging by Obama’s face, it was clear he failed to understand the point Marr was trying to make as well. I doubt Marr fully understood either.
"David Cameron has the opportunity every week to sit down with the Queen. And I think the first president she remembers was Truman and then Eisenhower and so on. Have a completely private conversation. No notes, no microphones. Do you have anyone you can have that kind of conversation with? Would you like there to be somebody with that sense of history that you could just totally privately shoot the breeze with?"
The phrase ‘privately shoot the breeze’ should be banned from all serious conversation.
It is highly telling that Marr devotes as much time talking about Obama’s impression of the Queen as he does talking about America’s future plans regarding Afghanistan. This is not a serious journalist interviewing a dubious politician, it is a cringe worthy scene of sniveling appeasement and it is extremely disappointing that this is the best the BBC has to offer the licence-payer. Andrew Marr’s interview is a slap in the face of real journalism and honest journalists everywhere.
Sasha
Homepage:
http://smasherkins.tumblr.com/
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Shameful
25.05.2011 08:35
Someone should strap them all to a TV transmitter and leave them to rot.
embee
boo hoo
25.05.2011 21:32
I doubt John Pilger is unbiased. All his books are very anti-western. He doesn't write anything good about the countries.
>> It seems I’m not the only one thoroughly disgusted with Andrew Marr’s interview
Its a compromise. Your not happy, but other people are. Can't please everyone.
>> This is hardly surprising behaviour on Marr’s part; his servile, opportunistic fawning
Yawn. Just boring opinions.
>> Despite all this however, the Obama interview still left me aghast.
Again, its a compromise. Can't please everyone
>> It starts off with Marr asking about how Obama feels about finally capturing Bin Laden on a personal level. Not why he was assassinated, why there was no due process, what justification exists for burying the body at sea or the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty or even how he would respond to criticisms of the way the whole affair was handled, from figures such as Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Marten and Gary Leupp. No allusion to the allegations that the SEALS were under orders to ‘kill not capture’; a clear violation of international law.
Errrrrrrr......... it is war. Thats what happens in a war. Its not like they sent the bobbies over to arrest him. I'm sick of hearing about Bin Laden's "rights". He hasnt got any. And if we waited for pakistan to do the right thing, we'd obviously be waiting for eternity. Stop being a victim and grow a backbone. Think of it this way - Bin Laden wanted YOU dead. So you owe him nothing.
>> Obama isn’t pressed on the issue at all, and after a couple of feeble attempts at follow up questions, the topic is quickly abandoned. The next question raises my hopes a little; Marr asks whether the US would send forces into Pakistan if they received intelligence of other al-Qaeda figures hiding out there. Obama’s response? A resounding yes. This is the perfect opportunity for Marr to force the president to play hardball, and I’m incredulous as to how he managed to let it slip.
Hardball about what?! Again, victim mentality. You seem to be defending people who want to kill you.
>> Obama’s brazen acknowledgment of the US’ bullying tactics and the assertion that American interests trump Westphalian sovereignty, while worrying on many levels, is not a surprise to those of us who follow American politics. US foreign policy over the past 60 years has made it painfully evident. That Marr does not follow this statement up with any probing however; that he doesn’t even attempt to take Obama to task, is appalling.
The victim whinges that the people trying to him and his neighbours have been stopped.
Do you actually think Bin Laden actual gave a shit about your life?
>> To make matters worse, he does the exact opposite, raising David Cameron’s statements regarding Pakistan “looking both ways” on terrorism, in what seems to be thinly veiled support for the further demonisation of Pakistan as a consequence of the OBL affair, and an attempt to justify the US breach of Pakistan’s independence.
Pakistan was dithering and incompetent. If you want a job doing, do it yourself.
You sound like one of those people who would happily wait at a red light for all eternity because it is the correct thing to do.
>> Marr goes on to Afghanistan, asking when US troops are going to pull out, as it is “never going to be sort of Switzerland with minarets” (cue hysterical laughter). No mention of Obama’s vow to start pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July this year. No hardtalk regarding the fact that Obama has actually intensified the war in Afghanistan since he’s been in office, along with drone attacks in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan, killing a huge number of civilians.
I'll agree with you on this, We should let Gadaffi slaughter his own people.
>> Obama’s Middle East speech is touched upon briefly, but again no mention of the backlash his reference to the 1967 borders generated within the US and Israel, no hint at the U-turn he made when addressing the AIPAC conference, and not even a question regarding how Netanyahu’s assertion that he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004”; fundamentally telling arguably the most powerful man in the world what to do, made him feel on a personal level.
Did you actually contact Marr beforehand with what you wanted him to ask him?
Because it is a bit late to moan about it and not do anything about it.
>> The ‘Arab Spring’ is sweeping away the puppet dictators that pandered to Israel’s every whim, and the millions of Arabs who are now expecting to have democratic say in their governments are overwhelmingly pro-Palestine. Add to that the fact that according to the recent Zogby International poll found that when asked to name two countries that posed the greatest threat to region, 88% of Arabs named Israel, 77% pointed the finger at the US, while only 10% feared a nuclear Iran; a possibility that the US would have us believe is the main threat to world peace, let alone the middle east. Asking about whether the Obama administration was considering re-evaluating its policy regarding Israel in light of these facts must have just slipped Marr’s mind. Indeed, it was the interim government in Egypt, a long-standing US/Israeli ally that mediated the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
Yeah well the Arabs don't like the jews as proven when they slaughted 400,000 of them in the 40s.
>> Marr asks whether Obama has a message for the Syrian people; who will be going out to “confront batons, and they’re going to be killed, some of them by bullets”. Skirting over the fact that sources in the middle east have continually asserted that the situation in Syria is not as atrocious as is being portrayed (Lets sweep the deaths of Bahraini protestors under the rug, along with the fact that Gaddafi is using British and US guns to kill his own people.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. By your argument, a shop shouldn't be allowed to sell alcohol or chocolate or bags of crisps because both of them can kill people.
>> A few feeble questions about Obama’s 2012 presidential bid ensue, glossing over the fact that Obama’s approval rating have dropped by over 30% since he took office, increasing by only 11 points after the Bin Laden raid.
Every presidents approval rating drops after they take office. Its not relevent because it happens to every previous president and will happen to every future president.
>> Marr wraps up the interview with the most politically sensitive topic on the US’ list of priorities; how the president feels about the Queen. The following question doesn’t even make sense. Judging by Obama’s face, it was clear he failed to understand the point Marr was trying to make as well. I doubt Marr fully understood either.
"David Cameron has the opportunity every week to sit down with the Queen. And I think the first president she remembers was Truman and then Eisenhower and so on. Have a completely private conversation. No notes, no microphones. Do you have anyone you can have that kind of conversation with? Would you like there to be somebody with that sense of history that you could just totally privately shoot the breeze with?"
Clearly you are unaware that the PM has to visit the queen once a week to tell her what he has been upto. I've always liked the idea of this.
>> The phrase ‘privately shoot the breeze’ should be banned from all serious conversation.
Irrelevent and just personal bullshit.
>> It is highly telling that Marr devotes as much time talking about Obama’s impression of the Queen as he does talking about America’s future plans regarding Afghanistan. This is not a serious journalist interviewing a dubious politician, it is a cringe worthy scene of sniveling appeasement and it is extremely disappointing that this is the best the BBC has to offer the licence-payer. Andrew Marr’s interview is a slap in the face of real journalism and honest journalists everywhere.
Well, why don't you write a letter of complaint? rather than sit there whining about it.
puppy dogs in a beautiful world
I've been FISKED!
26.05.2011 01:28
I would however like to clarify that the first thing I did after watching the interview was write a letter of complaint to the BBC. Even before writing this whiny article.
Thanks!
Sasha
Homepage:
www.smasherkins.tumblr.com
Sniggering at Andrew Marr!
26.05.2011 07:11
Speaking as a professional journalist, I can testify to the spermless Andrew Marr being considered in the idustry as generally docile and self regarding when it comes to his own "petite" style of fawning journalism. I think this comes from a couple of directions.
First Marr now cuts a pretty gormless figure at the moment due to being exposed as a member of the deeply dubious 'super injunctions' list, which for a journalist who wishes to be taken seriously is the kiss of death, and secondly the Whitehouse want as easy a time as possible while Obama is in the UK so are obviously going to choose a journalist that is too timid and frightened to do anything risky like asking difficult questions.
So this interview essentially looks like it does because it is a mixture of clumsiness on Marr's part and wily strategising on the part of the Whitehouse.
Of far greater interest, is how and why Marr came to be exposed just before the Obama visit. If you dig further here, you'll get a better understanding of what the BBC is really about!
Smashing Pumpkin.