George Stephanopoulos set the standard for memory loss
Unlike other observers, I don’t have a particular opinion about former PMO Chief of Staff Fred Doucet’s appearance before the Oliphant inquiry. Despite the fact that we both worked in Langevin Block during the Mulroney years, I don’t think we’ve ever met; so all one has to go on is what you see and hear and read. Whether he has a poor memory, or isn’t trying very hard, is impossible to judge from afar.
What I do find equally curious, however, is the selective memory of some members of the fourth estate. It seems that they’ve concluded that Mr. Doucet’s poor memory is akin to lying, as this Globe & Mail headline suggests: “Mulroney aide refuses to explain meaning of letters to Schreiber.” (The Star took his testimony at face value in their headline.)
No where in the story does Mr. Doucet testify that he’s “refusing” to explain the issues before the Inquiry. He just said that he doesn’t remember. Which is, according to any of my highschool English Teachers, a different beast. But why let facts get in the way of a good story, hmmm?
If you want some historical perspective on such matters, I’ll never forget the line that former White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos used, under oath, during the Congressional Impeachment Trial of his former boss, President Bill Clinton. It was priceless:
“Although I was in the room at the time of the meeting, I have no specific recollection of what was discussed.”
The same went for who, specifically, was also in the room at the time. He used the line something like 30 times, all while under oath. At least as far as I can remember. 😉
At the time, it struck me as incredibly effective and likely brutally honest as well. How many of us have a “specific” recollection of anything? All depends on what you take “specific” to mean, I suppose. Which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Mr. Stephanopolous was a relatively young man at that point in his life, so the passage of time and old age didn’t serve to explain away his weak memory. Did this lack of recollection, or his “refusal” to answer questions as the DTM would call it, serve to end his credibility? Was he called a liar? Run out of town by the U.S. media?
Not a chance. He’s now the esteemed host of the respected and high profile ABC News TV show “This week with George Stephanopoulos“.
Why the double standard?
MRM
I have a very good memory. But, I am often on a Conference call, mute myself, and hold a second meeting with people – while also on my Blackberry. I could easily be missing key portions of a discussion.
So I don’t find this at all surprising, in either Stephanopoulos’ or Doucets case. I think it shows the press is never actually busy enough to experience the fluid state of what constitutes a meeting and being busy. I sometimes MP3 some Conference calls and review them on my iPod to make sure I don’t miss key details.
I’m particularly enjoying that the media call the events on the hill different things. CTV calls it the Schreiber inquiry, CBC calls it the Mulroney inquiry and Don Newman says the Oliphant inquiry, etc.