Authored by William Robert Barber
Whenever opposing personalities representing differing ideologies or political party affiliations confront each other, particularly when presented in front of broadcast media, the question asked (by the host) is almost never answered. Instead of a direct answer to a direct query, the answerer prefers an oral rendering that may or may not have some semblance to the subject of the question. If the representations of differing political perspectives are physically or virtually present, invariably they evolve into speaking over each other and the listener is inhibited from hearing neither. These ideologically enhanced representatives, elected, appointed, or staffed, behave as if programmed and robotically manipulated by some self-righteous guru who by means inexplicit has grasps firmly on to the ideal-political truth of the matter.
Respective of attempts to dislodge these acolytes of ideological believers they steadfastly stay committed to the predetermined established line. They never permit facts to discourage them from their programmed commitment to the script. Interestingly, this act is repeated over and again; if there is an exception, it is only apparent when the host, and the guest has both drank the same cool aide. Then each buttresses the others perspective by complimenting on how smart they are and how dumb the opposition is.
My assumption is that ‘the handlers’ believe that freethinking and impromptu responses are way too dangerous an endeavor. Which leads one to deduce and conclude that the ‘bosses’ of the politically sensitive text cannot trust the personal thoughts of the question-responder; therefore, deception is the operational objective of ideologues in general and political parties in specific.
I am not really sure if this policy of purposefully misleading the voting public is effectual; nevertheless, obviously ‘the handlers’ do believe that this tactic of never answering a direct question with a direct answer is effective.
Possibly all public officials should swear an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth prior to making any public statement. If caught in a lie then the charge, as if responding to a question from the FBI, would be (an indictable) perjury. If such a benchmark was extended to political advertisement/publicity imagine how much money the networks would lose during an election cycle.
Sadly, the public cannot open-handedly trust politicians, the appointed, or the staffed; but then why should we presume that we ever could? It is a healthy voting public that looks upon its governing authorities with askance. The same attitude of skepticism even cynicism should prevail upon politically driven data, research, statistics, associations, and cleverly designed opinion surveys. It is not that political truths do not exist; it is that they do NOT exist in any pure form. Politically-unadulterated form is as much a myth as Obama’s “change we can believe in.”
For instance the newest politically inspired declaration by the Democrats are that the Republicans favor ideology over country. The implication is that Republicans are less patriotic than Democrats and it therefore follows that Democrats value patriotism over political ideology or party. Amazingly, this is repeated from one senior Democratic representative to the public as truthful. Does anyone believe that Republicans are less patriotic then Democrats? This sort of distorted nonsense is 4th grade dialogue acted out near the swing sets during recess.
Just as disconcerting is the questions that some of these network host asks. They are more interested in got-you questions than substantive. I wish the questioners would pre-declare their particular political affiliations and prejudice prior to the interview so that the audience could understand the motivational inclination prior to the Q & period.
I suppose I am asking way too much… after all, having direct questions answered directly is counter-traditional to America’s political-media legacy. Seemingly the goal is to usurp common sensibility by treating the voters as if sheep, cattle, or fish in a fresh water aquarium wherein the fish hobbyist makes sure that the temperature is balanced in line with compulsory additives and feeding.
It would be terrific if a TV program required all political guest to speak only the truth as they believe it to be and then instantaneously have a fact check meter that spurts out evidence that endorses or disproves the politicians’ statements. Well, fat chance of that happening, okay, I agree we need to deal with the reality of the possible not the supernatural; the answer in the immediacy is to scoot that Obama team out of office in 2012.