-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Many questions remain as to whether the objects pose a risk to national security
NPR's Leila Fadel speaks with Josh Earnest, a press secretary for President Obama, about the Biden administration's communications strategy after recent unidentified flying objects were shot down.
LEILA FADEL, HOST:
As we just heard, U.S. senators are expected to get a classified briefing on the unidentified flying objects later this morning. But lawmakers of both parties have complained that the White House still has many questions to answer. To talk about how a White House manages the knowns and the unknowns in a moment like this one, we've called up Josh Earnest. He's - who served as White House press secretary in the Obama administration. Good morning, Josh.
JOSH EARNEST: Good morning, Leila. How are you?
FADEL: I'm doing well. Thanks for being here. So why do you think the White House is saying so little about what these UFOs are, and why haven't we heard from Biden?
EARNEST: Well, Leila, I think what's important for your audience to understand...
FADEL: Yeah.
EARNEST: ...Is that there are basically two responsibilities that a White House, you know, communications strategists have. The first and most fundamental of them is, of course, being as transparent2 as possible with the American people about what the president's doing and why he's doing it. But the second opportunity that this strategy has is to actually aid and support our national security and foreign policy apparatus3. And in doing so, we can actually successfully lay out pretty clearly to our adversaries4 what we'll tolerate, what we won't and what we're prepared to do about it if they do things that we won't tolerate. In this instance, that's exactly what the strategy and what the White House is doing.
However, there are times where that strategy comes into conflict, and there are certain things about what we know about this program or about these objects that we may not actually want to disclose to the Chinese. We may not want to let them know what we know. And that puts in the - that runs into conflict with the responsibility that those people have to be transparent with the American public.
FADEL: I mean, this situation is so unprecedented5, shooting three objects out of the sky in three days with fighter jets. And critics are implying the White House is deliberately6 withholding7 facts that the American people should know. In your view, is that what's happening?
EARNEST: No, I don't think that's what's happening. I actually think that the White House is navigating8 that friction9 pretty well right now. As the - as Scott pointed10 out, there are daily briefings with the White House right now...
FADEL: Yeah.
EARNEST: ...In which, you know, both Admiral Kirby and Ms. Jean-Pierre are actually doing a pretty good job, I think, of answering questions about what's happening. They're not saying everything that they know. I don't think that we want them to. There are also certain situations where, you know, the intelligence community is likely saying things - here's what we assess is happening. These assessments12 may have low confidence or medium confidence or even high confidence. Those kinds of assessments are actually helpful when trying to make good, measured strategic decisions. They aren't necessarily the most helpful when you're trying to communicate clearly and publicly and definitively13 with the American public.
FADEL: So basically, from what I'm hearing from you, this is the strategy you would use if you were in this position right now.
EARNEST: Well, again, I don't know any more than you do.
FADEL: Right.
EARNEST: So it's hard for me to draw my own real clear assessment11 about that.
FADEL: Yeah.
EARNEST: But I do think - here's one thing we do know about this White House. They actually have shown in the past, in not too distant history, that they are pretty effective at using information to advance our national security interests. About a year ago, the White House was steadily14 putting out very detailed15 information about our intelligence assessments related to Russia and what Russia was planning to do to lay down a pretext16 for an invasion of Ukraine. That clearly put Russia off balance. It helped fortify17 the commitment of our allies to responding to it. So we have actually seen that this White House is pretty effective in using information to advance our national security interests. And at least for now, that appears - they appear to be doing the same kind of thing in a different context here.
FADEL: Josh Earnest served as White House press secretary in the Obama administration and did not have to assure the public that it's not aliens. Thanks so much, Josh.
EARNEST: Thank you, Leila.
1 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 transparent | |
adj.明显的,无疑的;透明的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 apparatus | |
n.装置,器械;器具,设备 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 adversaries | |
n.对手,敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 withholding | |
扣缴税款 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 navigating | |
v.给(船舶、飞机等)引航,导航( navigate的现在分词 );(从海上、空中等)横越;横渡;飞跃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 friction | |
n.摩擦,摩擦力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 assessment | |
n.评价;评估;对财产的估价,被估定的金额 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 assessments | |
n.评估( assessment的名词复数 );评价;(应偿付金额的)估定;(为征税对财产所作的)估价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 definitively | |
adv.决定性地,最后地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 steadily | |
adv.稳定地;不变地;持续地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 detailed | |
adj.详细的,详尽的,极注意细节的,完全的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 pretext | |
n.借口,托词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 fortify | |
v.强化防御,为…设防;加强,强化 | |
参考例句: |
|
|