A rhetorical question…
On the front pages of most newspapers this morning we learned that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took a few tough questions from soldiers yesterday. Here’s an account from The New York Times.
Apparently, reporters were not supposed to ask questions. But that didn’t stop Lee Pitts, of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, who fed a couple of questions to soldiers from the unit he’s embedded with, according to an e-mail published on the Poynter online forum (via Romenesko). The reporter begins the e-mail with this line:
I just had one of my best days as a journalist today.
His man, Specialist Thomas Wilson, asked about the lack of vehicle armor and spun an anecdote about digging through the garbage for scrap metal to do the job.
I have three questions:
- Would this question have been raised without the reporter’s efforts?
- How does the ethos of the questioner change the interlocutor’s response and our understanding of the situation?
- Does the fact that the press was present to report the answers mitigate the subterfuge?
I don’t have answers to these questions yet. I’d like to study this situation a bit more. So I’ll leave them to you to play with for now.
But here’s something I find immediately interesting: Was the Pitts/Wilson question rhetorical?
A rhetorical question suggests an assumed answer. It is asked merely to highlight the assumed answer and to encourage the audience’s participation in the discourse by supplying the assumed answer.
But the Wilson/Pitts question has no obvious or assumed answer. Yet I think we may interpret from Pitt’s e-mail that he had persuasive intention regarding his fellow reporters:
The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national
media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks — swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.
I don’t think any experienced reporter would believe that Rumsfeld would offer an answer different from what he would give the press since the press attended the event. So even though the questions were to come from the soldiers, the press is free to gather and report the answers as usual (and, apparently, some soldiers did ask unprompted tough questions–why wouldn’t they?).
What was the purpose of the Pitts/Wilson question? (I will suppose for the sake of this argument that Wilson’s participation was voluntary and accurately represents the facts of his situation. We may discover differently, but that doesn’t affect what I am about to say. I will further assume a journalistic intention, i.e. why has this armor situation has been allowed to occur? It’s a legitimate question.) How about this: Honey for the bear.
The anecdote portion of the question has three good traps to catch a reporter: drama, injustice, and irony.
Need to “hand it off to the national press”? Sounds like Pitts crafted the perfect question. The intended audience heard it loud and clear and reacted exactly was one would expect.
[I think it would be more accurate to suppose complex intention here. I have no doubt Pitts wanted an answer to the question for legitimate journalistic reasons: It's a good story.]
Now that we’ve dealt with the rhetoric of this event, we must deal with the ethics, i.e. my three questions.
Would this question have been raised without the reporter’s efforts?
I think it already has been raised. See this 60 Minutes
segment from October 31.
How does the ethos of the questioner change the interlocutor’s response and our understanding of the situation?
Secretary Rumsfeld might have been more curt with a reporter, but maybe not.
Does the fact that the press was present to report the answers mitigate the subterfuge?
I don’t see the subterfuge as being an issue.
The rhetoric of Pitts email bothered me, and it might just be me. Also, Pitts may have wrote it without thinking it would become public (more honest, less thoughtful?).
But it seemed to present “his” troops as puppets with him as puppetmaster. I would imagine that Wilson was bothered by scrounging metal in Kuwait for his vehicle in preparation for a tactical road movement into Iraq. I wonder who was bothered first and if the “coaching” was in framing the question(s), coming up with topics, etc.
From a military perspective, it’s a reasonable question asked unwisely. It’s a gotcha rhetorical question. Soldiers know that before asking a question like that, you better have done everything at your level possible and then have a recommended solution in hand that you need run up the chain.
Also, as I posted here: I have more questions than answers. Why is a Nat’l Guard unit 2 years after the start of the war scrounging scrap metal for armor in Kuwait?
Did the commander of this Nat’l Guard unit fail to predict his unit’s deployment? Fail to order armor kits? Fail to scrounge and work outside the box and armor his vehicles while stateside? Did the Nat’l Guard command or Pentagon turn down requests from this unit? Starting when?
Are we cycling units and equipment in and out of Iraq faster than we can equipment EVERY STINKING VEHICLE in the active, guard and reserve inventory with armor? Is the armored equipment staying in Iraq – handed down – to units without up-armored vehicles? (God, what a headache for a commander/property holder that would be, but would be a first.)
Blah, blah, blah … but I have to admit that the Pentagon and Congress not making armoring vehicles a priority after the kevlar vest/ceramic plate fiasco (which was mostly BS), I would be disappointed – although probably not that surprised.
I don’t know how much bearing it has on your questions, but there is some evidence for the purity of Wilson’s motives (i.e., he wasn’t just out to embarass the administration or undermine the war rationale). His ex-wife told Newsday that he’s “100 percent” behind President Bush, and that he joined the military in June 2003 because he “felt compelled to be over there.”
She also said “Rumsfeld’s answer seemed like he was sidestepping around the question.”
100 percent
I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it.
‘No soft-shell vehicles’
Bomb class shows sobering images
By Edward Lee Pitts, Military Affairs
Charles… good to see you back!
Re: #3 something about this bugs me, but I haven’t quite figured it out yet. It may be nothing.
Tim… yes, these days reporters ought to write e-mail “as if.”
Sven… Yes, I think Wilson is probably on the up-and-up. But these days qualifiers such as mine are necessary until the blogosphere has done its fact checking
‘Hillbilly armor’ protects 278th
Frist, Alexander seek answers on transport protection
Up-Armored Humvees v3.0,
Posted by: Dale Franks
Soldiers as news agents
Andrew, I wonder if there is a shadow of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in the non-passive role by Pitts that haunts you?
The (quantum) mechanics of TV…
And in terms of rhetorical “coaching”: Poets, priests, and politicians…
How does the ethos of the questioner change the interlocutor’s response and our understanding of the situation?
I’m not sure the response changes, but it does change our understanding of the situation.
An enlisted man in a combat theater challenging the SECDEF as an authorized knower and a stakeholder versus a reporter.
Rumsfeld And Military Discontent
As a retired military guy, I have no problem with Rumsfeld being asked the question. The military actually, contrary to popular opinion, revels in being able to confront superiors, and superiors understand and accept it–as long as you’re right.
My issue is that this was a forum for military folks to ask the boss tough questions–not a press conference. The reporter was out of line using the situation to his advantage.
As to armor and HUMMERS, they are not designed to be armored vehicles. They are transport, just like Jeeps. Nobody envisioned needing to armor them except in rare circumstances, and the additional weight has its own penalty. Production doesn’t simply gear up in an instant unless you go with “no-bid” contracts–something I’d guess are pretty much taboo right now.
The military actually, contrary to popular opinion, revels in being able to confront superiors, and superiors understand and accept it–as long as you’re right.
One of the disappointments with being promoted in the military is there are fewer people that you can have fun messing with. Sure, there are more subordinates, but that’s no fun.
The real fun is messing with superiors and getting away with it, if you’re right.
My issue is that this was a forum for military folks to ask the boss tough questions–not a press conference. The reporter was out of line using the situation to his advantage.
I’m not sure if I agree, but I do think this is where I derive some of my discomfort with the role Pitts played.