The sources of terrorism: My interview with CNN's Don Lemon
By David Neiwert Sunday Jun 14, 2009 5:30amYou can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1134)
PLAYS: (4538)
Joe Conason warned me that people were going to have a hard time saying the title of my book. I guess he was right -- Don Lemon had a rough time of it last night when he hosted me and Fran Townsend, a former Bush administration Homeland Security official, on CNN Newsroom.
The discussion did give me a chance to talk about that Homeland Security bulletin and how accurate it was. I did try to see if Townsend could shed some light on when it was commissioned, but we ran out of time.
In any event, let me know how I did.
Login or Register to post comments.
Great interview and you oozed such confidence! Good job. Too bad you ran out of time.
http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com
--and doing so undercut the most salient point of the exchange: Was the Homeland Security report on domestic violence actually started during the Bush administration. Neiwert attempted to get Fran Townsend to confirm but Lemon either wasn't listening as he watched the countdown clock...
I flipped on tv early this morning and got to see a rerun of the interview. I was still half asleep but I laughed out loud when the guy was trying to say the name of your book. I wish they had allowed more time because I wanted to hear what Fran would say about the DHS report. These shows should schedule fewer segments and allow the ones they do to go more indepth.
Nice job David. Keep up the good work.
Is they are scared that the people watching will hear something other then the corporate/gop line that they always put forth.
Control the propaganda and you control the people that watch.
Sound bites is all that is allowed.
republicanism is a mental illness!
Four out of five of those guys were white & right-wing, but whose face was top-center & in the middle?
The scary black Islamist man.
No racism here, move along.
in the same basket as all of the other anti-Semitics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6NshoDYtkE
Sounds like the typical police photograph spread to show witnesses.
Eliminate…
Elimination…
Eliminationist…
Eliminationism…
Eliminationism Disestablishmentarianist…
hast du angst?
The media eats nice guys for breakfast.
as opposed to the formal 'Haben Sie Angst?' I'm just sayin, because it's not often I get to be a grammar troll in a language that is not English...
:)
Yea-well done. And allowed to speak without being jumped on by somebody. This should have been 20 minutes long.
More attention needs to be paid to the issue.
David,
I think your first response was very good - you made an important point that was non-obvious right away.
When the poor flummoxed newsie came back to you, though, you were too conversational & I could sense the tension that the young man wanted you to hurry up. So, I'd say, you have to be almost pre-scripted so that your points are made cogently & quickly - cuz that's TV.
Otherwise, you do quite well - you present well as someone who is thoughtful, steady & knowledgable.
Try to imagine that you are just speaking with the interviewer and the other guest and forget that there are 50,000,000 other people watching your every move and word. Ha!!!
But seriously, as LightSeeker mentioned above, have the few KEY POINTS you MUST make in your head and regardless of the question figure out a way to MAKE THOSE KEY POINTS. Time flies by quickly in those interviews. There's nothing worse than thinking, "Damn! I wish I would have said such and such."
You come across very mild-mannered, which I'll bet CNN etc. likes a lot. You're cool and calm, intelligent and have important information to share. I think we'll be seeing many more interviews in the future with you (although sadly I wish we were not living in a country with so many racists and hateful people).
BTW David, what do YOU see as the solution to these problems? Do you advocate that these far right- wing hate extremist websites should be shut down? And then of course that begs the question...how far do the authorities go? For instance, if there's a website that mentions the past misdeeds of the State of Israel that are clearly facts (the USS Liberty attack in 1967 for instance), should that website be classified as a "terrorist" website for discussing Israeli terrorism??
Here's an example of information I found today:
http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/gaza-st...
This involves evidence of war crimes perpetrated by Israel. Would this be simply viewed as factual news or as Anti-semetic or merely Anti-Zionist?
I think everyone here would like to know your opinions on these things.
Also, what about public discussions and films that question the "official' story of 9/11? Should those films/websites be shut down?
It's the ol' slippery slope thing. Where do we put the rope up and say, "Okay. That's it. Far enough."??
I agree with Abby about having your most important points in mind and getting them out. I've noticed that this is what some of the most effective guest commenters do on cable news programs.
As an example, at 07:24 the announcer said, "David, the Department of Homeland Security recently released a report warning of the potential rise in domestic terrorism and said that military vets, radical ideologies, and a bad economy could be a volatile combination -- I mean, should we be afraid of the next terrorist that will be 'home grown' maybe, like Timothy McVeigh?"
You replied, "Well, I don't think it's, uh, particularly useful to be fearful. Uh, the chance of being, uh, actually the victim of an act of terrorism is, is so infinitesimal that it, that we probably shouldn't be talking about it in terms of, uh, our fearfulness, but, but certainly we want to prevent these acts as much as we can. And, and, frankly, the -- I -- I've spent a lot of time looking at that Department of Homeland Security Report. It certainly confirmed everything that I had seen in terms of my -- the intelligence data that I've been gathering for years, and I think that, uh, the folks that I talked to at the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL said exactly the same, and--"
Then the interviewer interrupts.
I recommend that you study your transcripts, edit the important parts by hand, and practice ways of answering these questions, because you'll probably be asked them over and over the more you appear on news programs.
To answer the question above, therefore, something short and memorable might be better, such as (and I know this has been done before, but you could make up your own analogy):
"Well, not 'afraid.' Actually, you have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite than of being hit by a terrorist. [Pause very briefly so the viewer can chuckle and/or visualize.] I've read the Homeland Security report and it confirms the intelligence I've gathered over the years. And the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL say exactly the same thing."
When you use "you" in your answers, as in the comment about the meteorite, you draw the viewer in, and viewers like that. And you also give the viewer a mental image.
You had a little shine on your upper forehead that the makeup person should have dusted. And you should probably not wear a white shirt, as white tends to glare a little; a very light pastel or gray looks better and doesn't bother the camera. And that tie -- bo-o-o-oring! Your clothes were colored almost exactly the same as the FBI guy who appeared earlier (02:15). Colors send a message about you. Of course you don't want to appear kooky, but you could liven it up just a little.
Your voice is excellent; it has a slight edge to it, but it's a pleasant and intriguing edge; its tones are expressive, not monotonous. And your smile is great! Not too toothy and very sincere around the eyes, which is important because viewers subconsciously know when someone is really smiling or just faking.
One other proactive thing you could do is ask the interviewer as they're doing the camera and sound check if they have pronounced the word "Eliminationist" -- and say it for them.
I think you've given Mr. Neiwert some excellent & detailed advice. However, cable news anchors don't necessarily meet with guests before going on air. On this one, I'd suggest he write out a phonetic spelling of his last name & the title of the book, then give that to the segment producer before the interview.
The producer is more likely to pay attention to guests before a segment starts and ensure the on-camera interviewer either gets the note or has it read through his or her earpiece.
Those are excellent pointers, Kate. Many thanks for taking the time.
You did a great job putting it all together.Very focused and articulate.I hope to see you do more interviews.
*round of applause
Great job as always. Calm, rational, succinct and comprehensive. You are also obviously getting more comfortable with the medium.
Norwegian cartoonist style:
http://nutria.msn.no/tegneserier/Default.aspx...
David. I'm very glad that you have been interviewed on this subject. We need you.
I have some --what I hope you will consider -- constructive suggestions on your two appearances now. I think you could make your responses more spare and efficient. Too many dependent clauses (and historical material) makes it difficult to follow your answer in real time. It takes practice but you might take your transcripts and see how you could pare down your responses to the most anticipated questions. In addition, if you formulated some overriding points you want to make, I think your responses would have more focus.
I think you did really well in both the interviews that I have seen, and I hope you will be assertive in booking more appearances. You know, cable news is always trying to find experts for their airtime, and you are an expert. Let's hope you stay on their radar.
Well done David!
You exuded much more confidence and relaxed appeal on this go around. You have an ability to show your intelligence and rationality when you can just respond the way you are.
And as much as that may be our main weapon against the neo-con artists (TM), it's still an important method!
J
While others may disagree, I have nothing but good things to say about your performance, David. You came off as non-partisan, non-threatening and knowledgeable, full of facts and an excellent source. Good job. As for me, I liked the title of your book. The interviewer should have practiced reciting the title -- Elimi - Nation- ists -- before going on the air. Sounds simple enough to me.
Some props to CNN for actually allowing an indepth interview. I was surprised you and Fran Townsend agreed on many points.
denver: when they grabbed three nazi-skinheads with a rifle who planned to kill Obama during the campaign, the FBI said that it was not a threat. After four incidents and six dead, they still 'debate'. this as if the debate supercedes the facts in this ongoing threat to America through domestic terrorism.
Great work Dave!! two thumbs up because that's all I have!
the mind-numbingly restrictive and pre-scripted/canned structure of the corporate-owned MSM's adolescent fear of intelligent and thoughtful discourse, your performance (although I loath that word) was professional, calm, confident and articulate. Kudos to you for having to put up with breathless, token mimbos who have difficulty with 6-syllable words and with Bush bimbo apologists/revisonists.
Oh, and before I forget . . . . fuck you, Dick Cheney.
informative however i would certainly be interested in the profile of these people (haters). what makes them tick and much does mental illness/substance abuse play into this. what's interesting are the people
who may not be involved with activities this extreme but secretly praise them. please continue the good work david.
1. Thousand points of light
2. Staying the course
3. Wouldn't be prudent
Sorry very old joke. Others have hit on it. Assume you will not have the time you need and boil some points down to a sentence or two - but just for these kinds of segments. Good job
Everybody should read Saraha's letter at FireDogLake to all the speaders of Hate in this country. I think she frames the right question to all the rightwing spouters who use lies and hate to spread their beliefs and or party. Its the question that should be asked to every rightwing troll who comes to progressive site. YES or NO.
Frankly I would have liked to see more shrieking, hand-wringing, pearl-clutching and deeply felt tears but generally very well done David.
It seems you face the same quandry President Obama does, that is, a desire to give a well thought out answer to the question that was asked versus the MSMs desire for a bumpersticker answer. The clown running your interview was vivid proof of that.
Is "Eliminationists" *really* that hard to say?
You did great and are getting the hang of it. Thanks.
ps. I went to Skagway, AK last week. My goodness is it ever nice to visit the good old, non-Bush US of A again. Even the eagles at the mouth of the Dyea River looked all shinny and proud again.
I would like to see more of this sort of intelligent discussion in the MSM, rather that the typical overly politicized, conflict-driven shouting matches. Both you and Townsend were thoughtful and respectful of each others' right to speak without interruption. There was no effort by either of you to politicize the non-political issues of security and counter-terrorism. It's refreshing to see some agreement in a format that for too long has focused on conflict. It was especially gratifying to me to hear you calmly and rationally reject the interviewer's attempt to frame the discussion with fear. I like your style. The only constructive criticism I might offer is that your style might make it difficult for you to make the points you want to make if the format or discussion is the old aggressive conflict-driven type. You might consider being prepared to adapt your style for such a setting in a way that is still not self-compromising. Well done.
Where are the Coke bottle glasses
The Dungeon and Dragons t-shirt
The Cheetos crumbs?
I look forward to reading your book!
Fund for his family:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
As Anais said; "non-partisan, non-threatening and knowledgeable." No ax to grind. Just the facts mam. The way you explain it it is soooo rational that there is no argument that you know exactly what you are talking about. It is a shame that there was not more time because seemed to have a lot more in the vault that would have been pertinent. Some day maybe they will let you talk about how the becks and O'Reillys and Hannitys perpetuate and encourage these "hate people."
Maybe the title of your book will be more recognizable becasue the word is difficult the first time you try to say it. Also you can tell Joe Conason I am pushing his book, "Big Lies" here and that is is a great reference to how the right wing politicians and propagandists operate. It would be really nice if he could update it to include this past election.
Good performance, David.
And nice that you got across the notion that people shouldn't be fearful of being a victim of such a crime, due to the extremely low odds of it occuring.
Anyone who knows me, knows that I am frequently a harsh, even rude, critic of how liberals present themselves in the media.
You did great, though this may not be a fair test in that Townsend didn't try to hit you with any major league bushwah. Nor did Lemon, as modern-day newspeople so often do, confuse the issue by spouting zombie Republican talking points.
For a liberal it was an unusually hospitipal environment.
Glad you made the point that being a victim of terrorism is an infintesmal threat. If your looking for some constructive critique I would urge you to find "Kate's" review. She gets so detailed that you'll even learn you have a smile thats not too toothy!
Yeah Kate's critique was pretty in depth but hey. It's better than "David, you looook wonderful."
Yeah, I think she has a good post thats why I called in constructive. Its great to see David on TV doing his thang'.
baby jesus thought is was a good interview
baby jesus is pro reality.
And Fran Townsend, ended on a similar note! ♥
Amended: Thank you as well, Don Lemon. :)
Neiwert: A+
Lemon: C-
An anchor who wasn't spewing spittle and talking over the top of his guests, and two guests who were both intelligent and courteous! A professional interview anyone in the BBC would have been proud of and a rare pleasure to listen to.
Are you SURE this was CNN....?
Good job, David.
I was pleased that a person from the left and one from the right could have a civil discussion without trying to talk over each other. Adults conversing on a TV news channel, whodathunkit?
It sounded like your book title was misspelled on his prompter, so I wouldn't worry about that.
- Tom
Login or Register to post comments.