Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
A post by Connor Boyack gave me the inspiration for the following. Let me be very clear before I write this; I find that I rarely disagree with Connor, and this is merely a different perspective on his post, which you should read first. The gist of his words were in relation to Mitt Romney not answering a reporter’s question.
Romney was asked . . .
“What do you dislike most about America?”
His response . . .
Gosh. I love America. I’m afraid I’m going to be at a loss for words because America for me is not just our rolling mountains and hills and streams and great cities. It’s the American people.
That was only part of his answer, but he never ultimately says there is anything he dislikes about America. Deceitful politician? Nope.
Classically trained by a PR Person
This isn’t just classic Romney. It’s classic for anybody who has been trained by a PR person or any person who doesn’t necessarily have an answer to a question they don’t agree even has an answer. If anything, the question is manipulative, which is why I would also have taught Romney to not directly address it.
Journalists are taught to ask assumptive and speculative questions (I’ll leave the assumption jokes aside). “What do you dislike most about America?” Any PR person with half a brain will teach clients to not answer assumptive and speculative questions. Yes, I don’t think any of us really believe that there isn’t something Romney doesn’t like about America, but the journalist assumes there is something he doesn’t like and expects a response. So, why should he (or anybody else for that matter) give an answer to a question just because somebody was trained to ask it that way?
This “Tactic” is as Old as the World
Yes. Not answering the assumptive question (the manipulative question) is as old as the world. Since the Bible is actually in writing, let’s consider the Parisees as the journalist in this situation.
John 8:3-7
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 QUESTION: Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, ANSWER: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
I got the point, and the Pharisees got the point, but technically, the question wasn’t directly answered. Ironically, this is a perfect example that straight questions do not deserve straight answers. The straight answer would have been “I know what the Law says. The Law is no longer sufficient, and she shouldn’t be stoned.” Yikes. A straight answer in this scenario would have most certainly led to some serious roadblocks Christ’s mission, but he saw through the manipulative and deceitful questioning, which he did not entertain.
President Hinckley . . . Straight Answer?
Remember this?
Mike Wallace: There are those who say: “This is a gerontocracy… this is a church run by old men.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: Isn’t it wonderful to have a man of maturity at the head? A man who isn’t blown about by every wind of doctrine?
Now I know there are some who will say this isn’t a direct question to him, but it is. It’s another tactic journalists use. They bring up something maybe two people have ever said, and they say “some” as though it’s a commonly asked question (when it probably isn’t) so they can elicit an emotional response from the interviewee. Hinckley chose a response that took the positive high road just like Mitt Romney and many, many other people being interviewed by the press do.
A final Word
First, let me just say that I don’t hold people in my profession in the same light as Christ, and I don’t think journalists are Pharisees.
Second, I’m not here to defend Romney, but I think the reasoning for his line of response (as fluffy as it was) merits another perspective. Straight questions don’t deserve straight answers when the question wasn’t really straight.
Third, Connor read this before I posted it. I thought it would be cool to get his feedback before putting it online. He made a good point. “Should all questions be dodged as Romney dodged this one? If not, what style of questions should be answered directly, and which should be avoided? Is there a downside to directly answering an assumptive question? If so, did Ron Paul’s direct answer to the same question hurt him, or help him?” . . . (photo: twistedself)