[001]
Rissa
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
It says \'No real life examples\', so I\'m just going to leave these here.
to:
It says \\\'No real life examples\\\', so I\\\'m just going to leave these here. (They were on the main page.)
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
* Jeremy Paxman on BBC\'s \'\'{{Newsnight}}\'\', interviewing then-Home Secretary Michael Howard on 13 May 1997, about a supposed confrontation he\'d had with Derek Lewis, then-head of the Prison Service, about the possible dismissal of the governor of Parkhurst Prison. \
to:
* Jeremy Paxman on BBC\\\'s \\\'\\\'{{Newsnight}}\\\'\\\', interviewing then-Home Secretary Michael Howard on 13 May 1997, about a supposed confrontation he\\\'d had with Derek Lewis, then-head of the Prison Service, about the possible dismissal of the governor of Parkhurst Prison. \\\"Did you threaten to overrule him?\\\" was asked \\\'\\\'fourteen times in succession\\\'\\\', and each time Howard never actually said whether or not he \\\'\\\'threatened\\\'\\\' to overrule Lewis--just that he didn\\\'t, and that was what mattered (\\\"The question isn\\\'t whether I threatened to do it, it\\\'s...\\\" \\\"But \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' you threaten to overrule him?\\\"). Of course, it\\\'s slightly averted in that Lewis successfully stonewalled throughout, meaning the question didn\\\'t actually get through the armor. Still, Paxman definitely comes off better for his persistence.
** In 2003, Paxman told Howard that he had only gone after the question so thoroughly because the next item on the show wasn\\\'t ready in time. After Paxman asked him about it one more time in 2004, Howard, at that point leader of the Conservative party, supposedly laughed it off and said he hadn\\\'t. Of course, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 didn\\\'t corroborate Howard\\\'s answer and in fact probably suggested that Howard lied (he did at one point \\\'\\\'ask\\\'\\\' the higher authorities if he could overrule Lewis).
** Generally speaking this is Paxman\\\'s journalistic style. He presses a question long enough for the audience at least to realise that the Politician or person being interviewed isn\\\'t giving a straight answer and is basically trying to change the subject.
* \\\"When did you stop beating your wife?\\\". Ask the question long enough, and most people around hearing it will eventually cave in and start asking the same question in different forms (\\\"Do you beat your wife?\\\", \\\"Is it true?\\\", \\\"When did you start?\\\") regardless of the validity of the claim. The phenomenon is known as a Loaded Question. Loaded with Armor Piercing bullets. This question is particularly bad as their is no simple answer that is decent. Consider what would happen if a politician answered \\\'\\\'Yes\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'No\\\'\\\'. Saying \\\'\\\'I have never hurt my wife\\\'\\\' could work but even then you have been caught on film saying that. This was used during door stop interviews so the person was caught off guard.
** The most commonly accepted answer to this is [[spoiler:\\\"I am not, nor have I ever, beaten my wife.\\\"]] Another good answer is [[spoiler:\\\"I\\\'m not married.\\\"]]
*** Unfortunately, all too often, when a person asks this question, they\\\'ll keep doing so until they get a \\\"yes or no\\\" answer, [[{{Troll}} regardless of the validity and veracity of the answers already provided]].
** [[ComicallyMissingThePoint \\\"The day before yesterday. Both of us practice boxing, and yesterday she won me.\\\"]]
* This is an appropriate tactic. When an interviewer (Asker) engages an interviewee (Giver), it\\\'s expected that the Asker will ask unless the Giver refuses to answer. Refusing to answer is acceptable. You simply say \\\"I do not want to answer that\\\". What is unacceptable is answering in a deceptive, dismissive way that makes it look like an answer. That tactic by the Giver really should be countered by a simple repeat of the question until an actual answer comes out or the Giver says \\\"No comment\\\". Anything less is a failure of the Asker\\\'s duty.
** The mystery is why so many Givers who ought to know better think that transparent half-answers look better than \\\"No comment\\\".
*** Because people are generally trained from the moment they learned to talk not to directly lie. Half-truths are easy.
*** Conversely, a person who can easily give a bald-faced lie has an advantage, as people don\\\'t expect that.
*** And because \\\"no comment\\\" can make it sound like you have something to hide. After all, if the Giver were truly innocent of what he is being accused of he would just say so, right?
[[/folder]]
** In 2003, Paxman told Howard that he had only gone after the question so thoroughly because the next item on the show wasn\\\'t ready in time. After Paxman asked him about it one more time in 2004, Howard, at that point leader of the Conservative party, supposedly laughed it off and said he hadn\\\'t. Of course, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 didn\\\'t corroborate Howard\\\'s answer and in fact probably suggested that Howard lied (he did at one point \\\'\\\'ask\\\'\\\' the higher authorities if he could overrule Lewis).
** Generally speaking this is Paxman\\\'s journalistic style. He presses a question long enough for the audience at least to realise that the Politician or person being interviewed isn\\\'t giving a straight answer and is basically trying to change the subject.
* \\\"When did you stop beating your wife?\\\". Ask the question long enough, and most people around hearing it will eventually cave in and start asking the same question in different forms (\\\"Do you beat your wife?\\\", \\\"Is it true?\\\", \\\"When did you start?\\\") regardless of the validity of the claim. The phenomenon is known as a Loaded Question. Loaded with Armor Piercing bullets. This question is particularly bad as their is no simple answer that is decent. Consider what would happen if a politician answered \\\'\\\'Yes\\\'\\\' or \\\'\\\'No\\\'\\\'. Saying \\\'\\\'I have never hurt my wife\\\'\\\' could work but even then you have been caught on film saying that. This was used during door stop interviews so the person was caught off guard.
** The most commonly accepted answer to this is [[spoiler:\\\"I am not, nor have I ever, beaten my wife.\\\"]] Another good answer is [[spoiler:\\\"I\\\'m not married.\\\"]]
*** Unfortunately, all too often, when a person asks this question, they\\\'ll keep doing so until they get a \\\"yes or no\\\" answer, [[{{Troll}} regardless of the validity and veracity of the answers already provided]].
** [[ComicallyMissingThePoint \\\"The day before yesterday. Both of us practice boxing, and yesterday she won me.\\\"]]
* This is an appropriate tactic. When an interviewer (Asker) engages an interviewee (Giver), it\\\'s expected that the Asker will ask unless the Giver refuses to answer. Refusing to answer is acceptable. You simply say \\\"I do not want to answer that\\\". What is unacceptable is answering in a deceptive, dismissive way that makes it look like an answer. That tactic by the Giver really should be countered by a simple repeat of the question until an actual answer comes out or the Giver says \\\"No comment\\\". Anything less is a failure of the Asker\\\'s duty.
** The mystery is why so many Givers who ought to know better think that transparent half-answers look better than \\\"No comment\\\".
*** Because people are generally trained from the moment they learned to talk not to directly lie. Half-truths are easy.
*** Conversely, a person who can easily give a bald-faced lie has an advantage, as people don\\\'t expect that.
*** And because \\\"no comment\\\" can make it sound like you have something to hide. After all, if the Giver were truly innocent of what he is being accused of he would just say so, right?
[[/folder]]
