News

News

Not stage-managed, says US diplomat
Right of reply
In response to the box story in the Rajpal Abeynayake column last week, the United States embassy here has sent the following letter. We publish below the letter followed by Mr. Abeynayake's reply:

In the January 9 Sunday Times, columnist Rajpal Abeynayake lashes out at me for allegedly stage-managing the press conference U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave at the airport before departing Sri Lanka. It would appear that Mr. Abeynayake's main complaint is that he was not called on to ask a question, unlike five other journalists present at the conference. As Mr. Abeynayake surely knows, in any press conference where the speaker has a limited amount of time, not all journalists who would like to ask a question get to do so.

As for his claim that we planted questions with friendly reporters ahead of time, Mr. Abeynayake needed only to speak with those reporters to confirm that we had no hand whatsoever in formulating their questions. Responsible journalists verify their charges before making them, and in this case such verification, had Mr. Abeynayake cared about it, would have been simple to obtain. The man calling upon reporters to pose questions -- as he always does for Secretary Powell's press conferences -- was the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Richard Boucher, who is not familiar with local journalists or their political tendencies. If Mr. Abeynayake has a problem with the questions posed by his fellow reporters, his complaint should be addressed to them, not to the officials who organized the press conference. Moreover, his accusation that we were somehow trying to shield Secretary Powell from tough questions is laughable. The Secretary has given hundreds of interviews and press conferences during his tenure, in all of which he and his staff have been happy to field tough questions (these interviews are available for scrutiny on the State Department's web site).

Finally, Mr. Abeynayake complains that the entire press corps should not have been invited to attend a press conference scheduled to last only 15 minutes, charging that we extended such an open invitation solely to have a large crowd on hand at Secretary Powell's departure. Perhaps Mr. Abeynayake could tell us which local and international reporters we should have declined to invite to such a high profile press event. My guess is that most of the reporters and cameramen who attended were glad they did, even if they didn't get the chance to ask a question. In any case, none of the approximately 30 other Sri Lankan journalists who attended the conference has lodged a complaint with us.

Philip Frayne,
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Embassy, Colombo

Mr Frayne's feigned incomprehension
Rajpal Abeynayake says:
Mr Frayne!
It's with some pleasure that I recommend some reading for Philip Frayne, from an American compatriot, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky offers a differing view of the U.S. media, as a manufacturer of consent. He goes on to say how the US political establishment controls the media agenda so that the average American can be immersed in baseball and pornography, while the nation is run by a few political elites.

Chomsky also (read his interviews) points to the first fallacy of PF's argument, which is that the US will not try to shield Powell from questions because he (Powell) has given so many interviews. Chomsky is one of the persons, though not the only one, to expose mercilessly how Powell botched most of those interviews. For instance Powell said that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, when even Phillip Frayne's cat should know these days that there weren't any. Small wonder that the US agit-prop wants to shield Powell now, in hindsight, though with laughably inept methods for doing so…

But, pray tell, is it because PF is in the ultimate analysis working for George. W. Bush that he is such a prince of unreason? Here I was saying last week that it appeared Powell's press conference was a managed-affair based on several facts (a) one questioner gets 2 questions when there is time only for 5. (b) PF stands up-front, and in full view, prompts Richard Boucher to pick the questions. Why should he, given he is stationed in Colombo? (c) PF gets his you-know-what in a twist, because one question was asked out of the moderator's arrangement.

All this taken together with the fact that some (not all) of the questions were so slavish, gave the press the appearance of being staged, I said. Not responding to any of these positions, PF says with Bush-like unreason and disingenuousness that I should have, like a responsible journalist, asked the questioners whether their questions were planted.

Yeah right. Maybe I should have asked George W. Bush whether he should resign, because he went to war and found no WMDs -- hoping like hell he'd say 'yes'? Or I should have asked Powell whether he was wrong about these same weapons -- hoping like hell he'd say 'yes.' Or maybe I should have asked Philip himself whether he can size up a cogent argument, hoping like hell that HE'd say 'no'?

To me it would appear that PF should learn his job, and then he'll probably do a better job of teaching me mine, like the typical patronising American. Until then, how about arranging for me an interview with that same Gen. Powell -- I'll even give you the questions in advance, Mr Frayne.

Top

Back to News