Talk:Sam Brownback on running for President, gay rights, the Middle East and religion

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Original Research note[edit]

Telephone interview with Sam Brownback conducted Thursday, October 11, 2007. --David Shankbone 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

questions[edit]

I am not saying that you're questions were bad, but perhaps you could of asked a few questions from the http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Story_preparation/US_2008 pages? I would hate to see all that brainstorming go for naught. I would like to see some of those questions answered by candidates. Contralya 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Many of those questions are outdated, and they are such a morass. For instance, "are you for or against discrimination based upon sexual orientation" was asked specifically related to his vote against that measure. More important than the work done in compiling questions is, with limited time, talking about issues that are current and not so basic. He recently came out supportive of the w:Elon Peace Plan and recently talked about leaving the Presidential race. So, many of the topics in those questions are covered, the ones that are relevant and not staid, but I don't find that list of questions particularly useful. --David Shankbone 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • They don't seem that bad to me. For instance, asking what made them decide to run for president... and there are others. There are some that perhaps shouldn't be asked, though only some of them are as outdated as you say. Yes, you have answered one or two, I would hate to see future interviews waste all of that question posting. And if no-one is going to ask multiple questions from those pages, than what are they there for? Contralya 08:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of the questions were asked or addressed. Some just aren't particularly interesting or current. Everyone has an opinion as to what should be asked, but I don't see many offers of help in transcribing, posting, copy-editing...you know, the heavy lifting. We have a blog that goes out to Google News that could stand to have people regularly help with updating....it's easy to come up with a few musings as to what you'd like to see someone else ask; however, all the heavy lifting is being done by a small group of us on here, and until I see more effort to help with the real work, I'll ask what I deem appropriate. --David Shankbone 14:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that you didn't answer any of them. I am not saying that any of the questions need to be provided in the exact text or format as they are on the pages, just that the question should be asked. Besides mainline issues (like stance on abortion), there are some more unusual questions that would grant incite into the candidate that wouldn't normally be seen, some unique things that aren't asked by everyone. And even though they give speeches on stuff, it would be nice to know a given candidate's stance on various issues in one interview. And about that 'heavy lifting', how hard is it to ask a person a question during an interview? I understand that you had limited time, though. The heart of what I am saying is that there should be more time in future interviews, and that more base questions should be asked. Whoever wins this election will no doubt play a big part in the future. There is about a year before the two main nominees are chosen, so I think there is time to get the important ones, if they don't see wikinews as a waste of their time. Contralya 15:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Nothing is preventing you from doing interviews yourself. If you would like to see other questions asked, maybe you should do so. I'm serious. In the end, everyone has an opinion as to what should be asked, and what should not. I'm not a puppet of the project and I do the work that I want to do. Same as you. Asking a question in a limited time frame with someone who is doing an interview or campaign event at every waking moment is far more difficult than perhaps you realize. One question asked means another is sacrificed. If I'm going to ask a question at the sacrifice of another, it will be for a good reason. Not just because a menagerie of different users took five seconds to throw out a few questions they think would be interesting to ask ("What did Clinton do right?") that aren't nearly as interesting as discussing the Elon Peace Plan, national security and energy, etc. And if I chose only questions from that page, then it would be, 'Why didn't you choose this question over this question?' If you want more influence on the questions asked, there are two ways to go about that: become more involved in helping with the interviews (I have a few you can transcribe for me since I'm about 10 interviews behind in transcription) or conduct them yourself. Nothing is preventing you. I'm happy for criticism, but the questions on that page are too old, too broad, too irrelevant, already been answered a million times (if we don't know the answer to "why did you want to run for President" at this stage of the campaign, then it's the reader's problem, not the interviewer's), or were actually asked. Frankly, we are just lucky to get any interview right now. We shouldn't be saying at this stage, "Well, we should get more time" when The New York Times feels the exact same way. --David Shankbone 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not like there is a place were you can type in a politician and easily tell what there position is on all of the issues and the questions like 'why did you decide to run for president' (if there is a site like this, let me know so I can use it) and wikipedia is NOT it. Then if most of the stuff is answered, shouldn't we try to ask the things that haven't been answered? The kind of questions I would like to see answered are things that let you know about the person and there stance on things not often talked about, and what they stand for and against, intellectual stuff, like which would hurt the people more, a Stalinist government or a fascist one? And apparently, not everyone is as well informed as you about politics, what about the people who aren't politicians or interested in politics, but need to know who to vote for (like me)? And what I meant is, there is about a year, I would think that if they didn't think this site was too minor, they could give an hour out of a year. Oh, If I wrote someone's transcript, they probably wouldn't agree with it. Contralya 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A transcript is a transcript - you don't change what was said. These people are running for president. Most people running for Congress don't have hours to give to each media outlet that wants it, let alone people running for pres. And I think what david is saying is that if you want specific answers asked, go out and do the interview. Questions are completely at the discretion of the interviewer. Lyellin 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem, Contralya, is that we are considered minor. Aside from the fact that I find the people I interview to be interesting, I'm doing big names, or at least bigger names, to increase our prestige value. Nobody has heard of us, and the main way I get these interviews is by throwing Wikipedia's name out there. The demands on these people's time is enormous. I personally think I gave an interview you could read on its face and decide how to vote for someone. I dislike questions like, "Why do you want to be President?" because they ring to me that same as interview questions that ask, "Why do you want this job?" In this interview we talked about religion, the death penalty, gay rights, the Middle East, energy policy, his personal view, some personal misfortune, some philosophical questions, that if you read this and don't have a sense of whether you'd want to vote for this man, then I don't know how I can do better. But I don't think those questions on that page are not going to particularly enlighten you any more. --David Shankbone 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I was talking about getting to know the person, because politicians aren't known for being completely honest. There needs to be a neutral, factual medium for voters to know what each candidate stands for and important questions. Every source for voter information I can find is un-neutral as far as politics, and the wikipedia articles don't give half the information that is needed. Well, anyway, if we can't get anything not heard anywhere else from interviews, there is hardly a point. No wonder 40% of the population doesn't vote. Out. Contralya 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know exactly what you are looking for, but everything you say you want is found in that interview. --David Shankbone 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you asked very good questions David, considering the time restraints, that are quite unique from those that the mass media gives us. Thanks for providing the interview. And in regards to Contralya's complaints, there are few places where you can get a full view of a presidential candidate, the best way to do so is to spend lots of time looking at various sources. -- 75.153.125.142 1:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but no one place. I would have to spend months looking at all kinds of different media just to learn what they have already said. Anyway, I want to hear what they have to say about China and Russia, I have never heard them talk about that. 19:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

venezuala[edit]

how did you let him say Venezuela does bad things with asking for a follow up!?

  • I thought about that, actually. There were a lot of follow-ups I didn't get a chance to ask. I only had half an hour, and I took 45 minutes (and received an annoyed e-mail from his PR manager). Unfortunately, time is limited so we can only ask so many questions. For instance, in response to the hate crimes legislation, he said, "A number of people believe strongly that it will [make it a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality in a church]." So...does that mean it actually will, or that people believe strongly it will when it really will not? Lots of things I wish I had time to follow-up. It's a tug-and-pull between follow-up and asking about other issues. It's difficult. --David Shankbone 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pong[edit]

Ping DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice![edit]

Very interesting David - although sometimes I feel like I'd LOVE to hear the tone of his answers - especially towards the end. Thanks again for this work! Lyellin 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Audio wiki[edit]

Any interest in having the intro recorded? It's well written and could be a good segment for a radio podcast. .:*:*:DAVUMAYA:*:*:. 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh I went ahead and recorded it anyway. .:*:*:DAVUMAYA:*:*:. 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Category improvement[edit]

"Category:Audio Wikinews News Briefs" is not appropriate here, so it should be removed. Van der Hoorn (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --Skenmy talk 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Under the section "On the role of religion in the Presidential race", in the last answer, first sentence, is [[w|The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief|The Language of God}}. It should be {{w|The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief|The Language of God}}, using curved brackets. Shuipzv3 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FA Candidate[edit]


Current Events Barnstar.png
Current Events Barnstar.png

This article is a featured article.
It is considered one of the best works of the Wikinews community.
See the archived discussion.


And, I think it is most-deserving. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)