The below article is from Leigh sales one of the presenters from Lateline
it's a pity when politicians do this as it makes them look shifty and untrustworthy
Well-readhead: Just answer the question
When viewers offer feedback about interviews on Lateline, easily the most common complaint is about politicians not answering questions. Nothing irritates people more.
So that I don’t embarrass any particular Member of Parliament – since many are offenders – here’s a little manufactured dialogue to illustrate what I mean.
Me: Minister, what did you have for breakfast?
Minister: For lunch, I had a salad sandwich and then for dinner …
Me: I’m afraid that’s not the question, the question is what you had for breakfast.
Minister: Leigh, if you’d let me finish, for lunch I had a salad sandwich and then for dinner, I had a steak.
Me: Minister, I want to know what you had for breakfast.
Minister: Leigh with all due respect, the issue is not breakfast, the issue is lunch and for lunch, I had a salad sandwich.
Me: The reason I’m persisting is because I think my viewers would like to know what you had for breakfast. You’ve not answered the question.
Minister: Leigh, I have answered your question, but if you need me to make it clear for you one more time, for lunch I had a salad sandwich.
Why do some politicians do that? Obviously some media trainer somewhere has taught them to ignore questions they don’t like and shift the discussion to more comfortable ground. But the tactic has surely jumped the shark. It’s now so endemic that viewers see straight through it. They make two assumptions when a politician ignores a question: it’s too difficult or there’s something to hide.
Not all politicians duck difficult questions. In fact, some of them are pretty good at rebuttal using logic, intellect and conviction rather than relying on spin. The more self-assured ones sometimes even concede a point or two. One of the more memorable Lateline interviews of recent years was when Tony Abbott fronted up after a particularly bad day during the last election campaign. He made no attempt to put a positive gloss on it, instead frankly admitting to my colleague Tony Jones that ‘shit happens’. But that’s pretty rare. If you listen to most political interviews on Lateline, you will note questions are often repeated in an attempt to cut through pollie-waffle.
I wish more politicians understood the benefits of being frank or trying to answer questions head on instead of skirting them. One, it can be persuasive. Two, viewers award points for guts. Anyone can win over an audience on a good day or under sympathetic questioning. But it’s much harder to convince an audience who may not be on side or to make your case in the face of challenges.
Viewers sometimes say to me ‘I don’t know how you keep your cool’ or ‘I could tell you were getting frustrated’. Sure, I get frustrated when politicians don’t answer questions. But based on the feedback I get from viewers, I’m not the only one. Non-answers irritate hundreds of thousands of people watching at home too. And they all vote.
Here are this fortnight’s ten interesting things to read, watch or listen to:
1. Perhaps the most famous example ever of a television interviewee not answering a question is the British Home Secretary, Michael Howard, under questioning from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman. Paxman asked the same question twelve times without eliciting an answer. The key part is about four minutes in.
2. Lest anyone think my made-up dialogue about breakfast/lunch is exaggerated in its repetition, I refer you to exhibit A: The Chaser’s tally of Peter Garrett’s use of the word ‘jocular’ in the fallout over a conversation he had with journalist Steve Price during the last election campaign.
3. John Howard recently gave a speech at Melbourne University’s Centre for Advanced Journalism about whether journalists and politicians are adversaries or bedfellows. A week later a panel of journalists (Paul Kelly, Alan Kohler, George Megalogenis and me) gave their take.
4. If you own a cat, no doubt this happens to you too every morning.
5. Earlier this year, Stephen Fry gave the inaugural Spectator Lecture in Britain. His topic was ‘America’s Place in the World’. Whether you agree with all his observations, it is a textbook example of how to write a great speech full of original insights. I warn you it’s long. But worth it.
6. National Geographic printed a great story and brilliant photo about a couple whose holiday snap was hijacked by a squirrel. The critter went viral, with a website where you could ‘squirrelize’ any photo.
7. If you’re the sort of person who takes pleasure in a great looking library or bookstore, this is the website for you. It’s a shame that the text is crass (they’ve called it ‘hot library smut’). It’s not funny and it takes away from what’s otherwise a great idea. (thanks @dlewis89 on twitter)
8. The New Yorker published an article earlier this year on lesbian separatists in the 1970s. It was one of the most bizarre and entertaining things I’ve read this year. I laughed out loud, although I’m still not sure if it was meant to be funny or not.
9. Psychologist Robert Feldman has written a book about the amount of lying all of us do and why. The Guardian printed a fascinating extract
10. I found this quiz in The Philosophers' Magazine rather interesting. It assesses whether your religious views are rationally consistent.
