We typically pay more attention to subtext than to text. For example, when we hear someone answer a question, we usually won’t notice if they actually answer a somewhat different question than the one that was asked. Oh we
I don't think it's 1, 2 or 3. Every interviewer on TV and radio has a limited time slot for a guest - even on shows with seemingly extravagant segment lengths like PBS and NPR - and if the show host is well prepared, there's a long list of possible questions that have been composed and ordered to "cover" the topic at hand. Broadcast media involves a lot of advance planning, and even a simple interview has to achieve some key objectives like bringing out facts and opinions while keeping the conversation "moving." The savvy host knows that even an evasive answer will do a basic job of "covering" the topic from the interviewee's perspective. That answer is likely to be evasive if the interviewee is a politician and less likely to be so if the interviewee is a subject matter expert. If a show host wants a non-evasive answer, he can always book a different type of guest (e.g., The Diane Rehm Show on NPR, which relies more on experts than politicians as guests).
I agree with you and so does Jeff Greenfield, at least in general. He says that most reporters are afraid of appearing biased, so they won't challenge a candidate for saying something false, misleading, or evasive.
Having status is mostly having status for having status. Like the way that Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. Having done or accomplished important things has nothing to do with it. Pretending to be important with enough sincerity that people believe you are important is what matters. That is why actors and actresses are among the highest status individuals. They are really good at pretending to be someone they are not.
A media interview is about trying to increase status, not about trying to convey an understanding or a representation of reality. If you can not answer the interviewer's questions, you can gain status by dissing him/her, unless your non-responsiveness shows pretty severe ignorance.
What did Newt Gingrich say recently about the “gotcha” media? Gingrich was answering questions honestly, that the Ryan Medicare plan was nonsense and the rest of the GOP didn't like his honesty so he backtracked, showing that the only “status” that Gingrich cares about is the status inside the GOP echo chamber.
What's causing the motivation to dodge? Could it be related to optimism bias? If yes then modest question-evasion is so often tolerated, because otherwise all the interviewees would be depressed.
Are dodgers concious of their dodging? Not necessarily.
What Gabriel said. Conversation is usually a cooperative activity.
Other considerations:
1. It raises considerable social awkwardness to explicitly note people's dodges. The conversation easily collapses.
2. Minds never change right on the spot, anyway. If you are really trying to convince someone, let their dodge slide and concentrate on raising your own points.
I recall a Mike Munger column on interviewing techniques for academics, where he said that interviewers expect academics to answer a different question, simply because the academics are the experts and they know what is relevant and not.
I lean heavily towards #2. Interviewees, particularly high-status ones, tend not to be financially compensated for their appearances, so their compensation for doing the interview is the interviewer's cooperation in using the interviewer employer's control of the communications medium to send the interviewee's preferred message.
This explanation works better for the US because even before the cable explosion, interviewees had a choice of outlets. In the UK, the BBC's extremely strong market presence in both TV and radio may have permitted its interviewers greater leeway than the US permitted.
viva le Daily Show! Jon Stewart calls people on their evasions, and the viewers love it.
Though better than Barbra Walters, I find Stewart to be pretty much a kiss ass with high profile guest. I saw John Stossel give a tough interview once, I think it was with Bruce Babbitt, the guest got up and pulled the microphone off and stormed off. I do not think Stossel ever got that high a profile person to sit for an interview again.
On the topic I think that it is a combination of 2 and 3.
I'm not sure I'd call it libertarian in this case. Certainly, "interpreting" what is said exposes the original statement to the same level of bias and "believing" the statement.
What I see is that if you catch a person dodging your question, you can be reasonably sure that they are interested in dodging the question. Ask it again, and you only make them dodge again. So either you'll start a futile run-around like Michael Moore asking, highlighting the dodge, asking again, highlighting the dodge again, but never actually learning anything, or you just drop it until you can trick the interviewee into revealing what he/she is hiding, which might be never.
So, you don't bother the interviewee with a morality play that makes no one look good. You look for the answer in a way that doesn't require the interview.
Alternately, I suppose you get Mr. T to just intimidate the target into answering your questions, but you can't always do that. I would totally watch it, though.
That's the classic libertarian critique of journalism. They have to soft-pedal anything having to do with the police, bureaucracy, and politicians in order not to lose access. Never believe anything any journalist says about anything having to do with government; you need to interpret it.
I don't think it's 1, 2 or 3. Every interviewer on TV and radio has a limited time slot for a guest - even on shows with seemingly extravagant segment lengths like PBS and NPR - and if the show host is well prepared, there's a long list of possible questions that have been composed and ordered to "cover" the topic at hand. Broadcast media involves a lot of advance planning, and even a simple interview has to achieve some key objectives like bringing out facts and opinions while keeping the conversation "moving." The savvy host knows that even an evasive answer will do a basic job of "covering" the topic from the interviewee's perspective. That answer is likely to be evasive if the interviewee is a politician and less likely to be so if the interviewee is a subject matter expert. If a show host wants a non-evasive answer, he can always book a different type of guest (e.g., The Diane Rehm Show on NPR, which relies more on experts than politicians as guests).
A different approach.
I agree with you and so does Jeff Greenfield, at least in general. He says that most reporters are afraid of appearing biased, so they won't challenge a candidate for saying something false, misleading, or evasive.
Having status is mostly having status for having status. Like the way that Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. Having done or accomplished important things has nothing to do with it. Pretending to be important with enough sincerity that people believe you are important is what matters. That is why actors and actresses are among the highest status individuals. They are really good at pretending to be someone they are not.
A media interview is about trying to increase status, not about trying to convey an understanding or a representation of reality. If you can not answer the interviewer's questions, you can gain status by dissing him/her, unless your non-responsiveness shows pretty severe ignorance.
What did Newt Gingrich say recently about the “gotcha” media? Gingrich was answering questions honestly, that the Ryan Medicare plan was nonsense and the rest of the GOP didn't like his honesty so he backtracked, showing that the only “status” that Gingrich cares about is the status inside the GOP echo chamber.
What's causing the motivation to dodge? Could it be related to optimism bias? If yes then modest question-evasion is so often tolerated, because otherwise all the interviewees would be depressed.
Are dodgers concious of their dodging? Not necessarily.
What Gabriel said. Conversation is usually a cooperative activity.
Other considerations:
1. It raises considerable social awkwardness to explicitly note people's dodges. The conversation easily collapses.
2. Minds never change right on the spot, anyway. If you are really trying to convince someone, let their dodge slide and concentrate on raising your own points.
Great example. You beat me to it!
It doesn't strike anyone else as silly to pick one of these three?
I recall a Mike Munger column on interviewing techniques for academics, where he said that interviewers expect academics to answer a different question, simply because the academics are the experts and they know what is relevant and not.
I lean heavily towards #2. Interviewees, particularly high-status ones, tend not to be financially compensated for their appearances, so their compensation for doing the interview is the interviewer's cooperation in using the interviewer employer's control of the communications medium to send the interviewee's preferred message.
This explanation works better for the US because even before the cable explosion, interviewees had a choice of outlets. In the UK, the BBC's extremely strong market presence in both TV and radio may have permitted its interviewers greater leeway than the US permitted.
I think you added an unnecessary "about anything having to do with government" to your comment there.
viva le Daily Show! Jon Stewart calls people on their evasions, and the viewers love it.
Though better than Barbra Walters, I find Stewart to be pretty much a kiss ass with high profile guest. I saw John Stossel give a tough interview once, I think it was with Bruce Babbitt, the guest got up and pulled the microphone off and stormed off. I do not think Stossel ever got that high a profile person to sit for an interview again.
On the topic I think that it is a combination of 2 and 3.
I'm not sure I'd call it libertarian in this case. Certainly, "interpreting" what is said exposes the original statement to the same level of bias and "believing" the statement.
What I see is that if you catch a person dodging your question, you can be reasonably sure that they are interested in dodging the question. Ask it again, and you only make them dodge again. So either you'll start a futile run-around like Michael Moore asking, highlighting the dodge, asking again, highlighting the dodge again, but never actually learning anything, or you just drop it until you can trick the interviewee into revealing what he/she is hiding, which might be never.
So, you don't bother the interviewee with a morality play that makes no one look good. You look for the answer in a way that doesn't require the interview.
Alternately, I suppose you get Mr. T to just intimidate the target into answering your questions, but you can't always do that. I would totally watch it, though.
That's the classic libertarian critique of journalism. They have to soft-pedal anything having to do with the police, bureaucracy, and politicians in order not to lose access. Never believe anything any journalist says about anything having to do with government; you need to interpret it.
viva le Daily Show! Jon Stewart calls people on their evasions, and the viewers love it.
Which suggests to me its #1.
I'm definitely leaning toward #2. When the artful dodger is called out, the interview starts looking like this:
Journalist: "Why were taxes raised last year, when you said you would lower them?"
Politician: "Look at the great successes we've seen in reducing corruption."
J: "You haven't answered my question. Why are taxes higher?"
P: "I've reduced spending on garbage removal by 50%."
J: "That doesn't explain why taxes are higher. Why?"
P: "There's all this wasteful spending out there, and I've put a stop to it, just like I promised."
J: "But taxes are still higher. Why?"
P: "Look at the dancing monkey. This interview is over."