Slashdot Mirror
Technical Glitch Lets Reporters Eavesdrop On Obama, Sarkozy
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."
Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.
Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
I think it's possible to dislike their PM without wanting them destroyed. I disliked Bush, but it didn't make me unamerican.
Moreover, this is two politicians talking. Why do we assume that they were being honest with each other?
I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".
Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a whole nation, when you're merely speaking for yourself, or your peer group?
I grew up in Southern Ontario, in a small community without a single Quebecer or French person around for hundreds of miles. I now live in Quebec, and (clearly) have no problem with "the french". I moved here because I live in the Capital region, and I can get an acre of land, 20 minutes from downtown Ottawa, surrounded by farmland, for 1/2 the price of a home on the Ontario side!
I do have issues with *some* french people, but I also have issues with *some* people from a broad spectrum of society.
I think what you really hate are 1) mostly quebec politicians and 2) dumbasses that happen to be french.
Suck it up buddy. #1 and #2 exist in every culture group, and language group, and genetic group, worldwide. ;)
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.
Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "
I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.
In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?
But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.
Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."
Breakfast served all day!
Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....
People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.
White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.
"Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?
Syria has additionally to the Arabs Kurds, Cherkessians and Armenians, the president of Syria is neither muslim nor christian (like a percentage of the Palestinians), but Nusairian. Lebanon is half christian, half muslim, and in Lebanon, first several christian militias killed between 1000 and 1500 people in Karantina and then the Kata'ib (drusian militia) with the help from the israeli military police killed between 500 and 3000 palestinians in the both camps Sabra and Shatila. Jordan, where most palestinian refugees live, had several conflicts with Israel about water resources, and wishes nothing more than to get finally rid of the state-within-state refugee camps on its territory. 50% of Jordan's population are descendants from palestinian refugees, with most of them living in the both towns Amman and Zarqa (where more than 90% of the population are palestinian), and in the 10 remaining refugee camps. Basicly this means that native Jordanians and Palestinians never mixed - the native Jordanians own the land, and the Palestinians live in the towns and refugee camps.
The only place where palestinians are land owners and are also the majority are - tada! - the West Bank and Transjordan. And this is the territory Israel cuts through with its settlements, some of them legal (on "state owned" land), some of them illegal, but still protected by the Israelian army.
Really? The standing ovation of Congress was bad treatment? The Congress applauds Netanyahu more than its own president.
While you're at it, you conveniently leave out Joe Biden's visit to Israel and what a slap in the face to the US that was!
You're either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. The end result is the same.
The big question is, why is there a dislike of Netanyahu? Nothing happens without reason.