For a very long time it has been apparent that politicians will not, can not, or prefer not, to answer any questions about anything. It does not follow the photo where the famous hear no, see no, and speak no evil shows the frogs living in a world of utopian delight. Unfortunately this world is a fantasy that only the frogs can enjoy.
I used to look forward to the Sunday news shows where the interviewer grilled the politicians of all stripes about all of the latest necessary news. But, it did not take very long to realize that after the interview, there was really no new insight or information that was helpful in understanding the important issues.
But in a fit of curiosity I wanted to figure out how they avoided the question and if there is a "standard" play in the great political handbook. And sure enough, there is a sure fire way to not answer the questions while at the same time looking good to the viewers. It is called re-framing! Lets call the interviewer David, and the politician John as an illustrative example. David: "Do you think that the president was right about the US being involved in Libya"? John: "Look David, I have always felt that the US is an important part of the world community. I have always voted to be responsible and fair in our global affairs. So, I will continue to believe that we are a good world citizen". The politician always starts with either "Look" or "Listen". He or she then circles the wagons and answers a different question that is totally non-committal. Clearly, they do not want to be cited during election time if their answer was wrong. We all have the ability to say things that will later be modified when new information is obtained. I would be really pleased if a politician simply answered the question honestly with the proviso that "based on my current information" was used.
Framing is a way to build something. Re-framing says that you made a mistake and have to start over. Just thought...
I used to look forward to the Sunday news shows where the interviewer grilled the politicians of all stripes about all of the latest necessary news. But, it did not take very long to realize that after the interview, there was really no new insight or information that was helpful in understanding the important issues.
But in a fit of curiosity I wanted to figure out how they avoided the question and if there is a "standard" play in the great political handbook. And sure enough, there is a sure fire way to not answer the questions while at the same time looking good to the viewers. It is called re-framing! Lets call the interviewer David, and the politician John as an illustrative example. David: "Do you think that the president was right about the US being involved in Libya"? John: "Look David, I have always felt that the US is an important part of the world community. I have always voted to be responsible and fair in our global affairs. So, I will continue to believe that we are a good world citizen". The politician always starts with either "Look" or "Listen". He or she then circles the wagons and answers a different question that is totally non-committal. Clearly, they do not want to be cited during election time if their answer was wrong. We all have the ability to say things that will later be modified when new information is obtained. I would be really pleased if a politician simply answered the question honestly with the proviso that "based on my current information" was used.
Framing is a way to build something. Re-framing says that you made a mistake and have to start over. Just thought...
RSS Feed
