Transcripts not always accurate…

« previous post | next post »

Matt Yglesias, "Trump’s latest big interview is both funny and terrifying", Vox 10/23/2017:

Bartiromo is an extraordinarily soft interviewer who doesn’t ask Trump any difficult questions or press him on any subject. That makes the extent to which he manages to flub the interview all the more striking. He’s simply incapable of discussing any topic at any length in anything remotely resembling an informed or coherent way. He says the Federal Reserve is “important psychotically” and it’s part of one of his better answers, since one can at least tell that he meant to say “psychologically.”

That would be a malapropism for the ages, if it were actually what he said.

But it isn't. Here's audio and an accurate transcript for the passage in question, where President Trump is answering a question about the choice between John Taylor and Jerome Powell for chair of the Federal Reserve Bank:


and they're both very talented people

and it's a hard decision
it's actually a very-  a very important decision  people have
no- most people have no idea how important that position is
that position is actually more imp- a lot of people say get rid of the fed
take the fed out
the fed's a very important position
it's also important psychologically if the right person is in there
a lot of good things can hap-
I think I'm doing a good job for business in that way
people are coming into the country

I suspect that Yglesias was working from the leaked transcript at ValueWalk, posted on 10/2/2017, which has this for the same passage:

And they are both very talented people.  And it’s a hard decision.  It’s actually a very important decision.  People have no — most people have no idea how important that position is.  That position is actually — more — a lot of people get rid of the Fed.  

Take the Fed out.  That’s a very important position.  It’s also important psychotically.  If the right person is there a lot of good things can happen.  I think I’m doing a good job for businesses in that way.  People are coming into the country;

Maybe a Freudian finger slip by the transcriber?

Anyhow Yglesias was not the only one to echo this error — thus Kathryn Watson, "Janet Yellen speaks to National Economists Club as Trump decides her fate", CBS News 10/20/2017:

Mr. Trump told Fox News selecting the next Fed chair is a "hard" decision, but an "important" one.

"That's a very important position," Mr. Trump said. "It's also important psychotically. If the right person is there a lot of good things can happen. […]"

Watson doesn't comment on the word choice, however.

 



3 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 24, 2017 @ 7:25 am

    Dr omnibus dubitandum est.

  2. Bob Ladd said,

    October 24, 2017 @ 3:52 pm

    @Michael:

    Presumably including Dr Omnibus himself?

  3. JPL said,

    October 24, 2017 @ 6:19 pm

    "… it's also important psychologically if the right person is in there
    a lot of good things can hap-
    I think I'm doing a good job for business in that way
    people are coming into the country"

    If Bartiromo had then asked him, "How do you know when a candidate is the right person, and what kinds of good things can happen if such a person is in there?", does anyone think he could have provided an appropriate "informed and coherent" answer, and even if she had continued pressing him on this question for 45 minutes without him walking out, that he would ever be able to give an informative answer to the questions? I know what he's getting at here, but it's not that he's unwilling to express it because he knows it's an unpopular view, I think he's not capable of expressing the idea.

    "Psychotically" aside, Yglesias's judgment that, "He's simply incapable of discussing any topic at any length in anything remotely resembling an informed or coherent way" is probably an understatement. This is not normal language use for anybody, let alone what we should expect from a President. Nothing he has said has given us any shred of evidence that he has an adequate understanding of what he is trying to talk about, when it comes to policy or serious problems and the business of government. What he does seem to be good at, apart from running the con, is schmoozing. His cognitive skills, in addition to his ethical understanding, I think are best described as primitive, and I'm not even getting to his sociopathic tendencies. This is just one small example, but the nation has a big problem here of incoherence in its executive role.

RSS feed for comments on this post