Seat at the Table

OK.  Maybe not.  But I was amused to see him make the following point with how a questions was asked during a 60 Minutes interview when asked about possibly visiting the World Trade Center site:

PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?
PELLEY: Well, the American nation–
AHMADINEJAD: You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.

I hate to say it but a solid point is made here.  The reporter is asking a question that assumes a fact rather than presents fact-based proof.  Had the reporter asked the question by saying “You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would outrage many Americans and I say this as we have a national survey showing that over 90% of the public would consider themselves outraged if you visited” then it might have forced a straight answer.  Instead, the reporter assumed a fact thus opening an opportunity to question the questioner instead of being forced to answer.

This reminds of a media training exercise Edelman put it’s senior management through when I was there about five years ago.  A reporter would interview us and start asking questions that assumed facts (e.g., explain why your company is stealing money instead of I have evidence here that shows your company is stealing money).  Of course, the right answer to the first question was to question where the reporter got these supposed facts and assumptions.  It was a good reminder that how questions are asked open opportunities to turn the tables in the interview.   I wonder who Ahmadinejad uses for media training?